CHAPTER IV.

BIKTH AND EARLIEST EVENTS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.

§ 32. THE CEXSUS.

WITH respect to tlie birth of Jesus, Matthew and Luke agree
in representing it as taking place at Bethlehem; but whilst tlie lat-
ter enters into a minute derail of all tlie attendant circumstances,
tlie former merely mentions tlie event as it were incidentally, refer-
ring to it once in an appended sentence as tlie sequel to what liad
gone before, (i. 25.) and again as a presupposed occurrence, (n. 1.)
The one Evangelist seems to assume tliat Bethlehem was the ha-
bitual residence of the parents; but according to tlie other they arc
led thither by very particular circumstances. This point of differ-
ence between tlie Evangelists however can only be discussed after

145

BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OP JESUS.

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 witli himself and with dates otherwise ascertained seems
to have fallen. This is the statement, tliat the census, decreed by
Augustus at the time when Cyrenius (Quirinus) was governor of
Syria, was the occasion of the journey of tlie parents of Jesus,
who usually resided at Nazareth, to Bethlehem where Jesus was
born (Luke ii. 1. ff.)

The -first difficulty is that tlie d-ro'ypcKfifj (namely, the inscription
of the name and amount of property in order to facilitate tlie tax-
ation) commanded by Augustus, is extended to all the. world naoav
Tfjv oiKovi.iKVTfv. ,„ This expression, in its common acceptation at that
time, would denote the orbis Romanus. But ancient authors men-
tion 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 olitovf.iEvr)
merely tlie land of Judea, and not tlie Eoman world according to
its ordinary signification.  Examples were forthwith collected in
proof of tlie possibility of such an interpretation,* but they in fact
prove nothing. For supposing it could not be sliown that in all
these citations from the Scptuagint, Josephus, and the -New Testa-
ment, the expression really does signify, in tlie extravagant sense
of these writers, tlie whole known world; still in the instance in
question where the subject is a decree of the Roman emperor, Traaa
•fj oiKovfievT] must necessarily be understood of the regions which he
governed, and therefore of the orbis llomanus. This is the reason
that latterly tlie opposite side lias been taken up, and it has been
maintained, upon tlie authority of Savigny, that in the time of Au-
gustus a census of tlie wliole empire was actually undertaken, f 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 effected.
Finally, tlie very expressions of these writers show that their tes-
timony 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 lie began tlie carrying out his project by an
assessment of individual provinces, but he left tlie further execution
and completion to his successors. ^ Admit tliat the gospel term
66ypa (decree) may be interpreted as a mere design, or, as Hoffmann
thinks, an undetermined project expressed in an imperial decree;

^ * Olshauscn, Paulus, Kuinol. -t- Tlioluck, S. 194 ff. Keander, S. 10. j: Cassiodor.
Variarum 3, 52. Isidor. Orig. n, 3!i. § To refer here to the Monumentum Awyranum,
which is said to record a census of the whole empire in the year of Rome 74G, (Osiander,
P. '.);).) is proof of the srcatcst carelessness. For . he who examines this inscription will
, nnd mention only of three asscpsmerts census civmm Romanorum, which Suetonius desig-
nates c(•niffin prpuli and of which -Dio Cnssius speaks, at least of one of them. as uTrovpaAi)
TLIV ey Tg 'Ira/.ia KaTdiicuvvTuv.  See Ideler, Chronol. 2, S. 339.   || In the authoritative
citation in .Suiilas are the words taken from Luke, avTi] ri diroypa^?/ •npwi) e-yevero.

146

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

still the fulfilment of tins project in Judea at the time of the Lirth

of Jesus was impossible.

Matthew places tlie Lirth of Jesus shortly before the death of
IIcrod tlie Great, whom he represents (ii. 19.) as dying during tlie
abode of Jesus in Egypt. Luke says tlie same indirectly, for when
speaking of tlie announcement of tlie Lirth of the Baptist, he refers
it to tlie days of Herod the Great, and lie places the birth of Jesus
precisely six months later; so that according to Luke, also, Jesus
was Lorn, if not, like John, previous to the death of Herod I., shortly
after that event. Now, after tlie dcatli of Herod tlie country of Ju-
dea fell to his son Archelaus, (Matt. ii. 22.) who, after a reign of
something less than ten years, was deposed and Lanishcd Ly Au-
gustus,* at which time Judca was first consituted a Roman province,
and began to be ruled by Roman functionarics.t Thus tlie Roman
census in question must have been made either under Herod tlio
Great, or at the commencement of tlie reign of Archelaus. This is
in tlie highest degree improbable, for in those countries wliicli were
not reduced in formam provincue, but were governed by regibus
sociis, tlie taxes were levied by tliesc princes, wlio paid a tribute to
the Romans; f and this was the state of tilings in Judea prior to the
deposition of Archelaus. It lias been the object of much research
to make it appear probable tliat Augustus decreed a census, as an
extraordinary measure, in Palestine under Herod. Attention has
Tacen directed to tlie circumstance that tlie breviarium irnpe/'ii,
which Augustus left behind him, contained tlie financial state of the
whole empire, and it lias been suggested that, in order to ascertain
the financial condition of Palestine, lie caused a statement to be pre-
pared by Herod. § Reference has been made first to the record of
Josephus, tliat on account of some disturbance of tlie relations be-
tween Herod and Augustus, the latter threatened for tlie future to
make liini feel his subjection; |] secondly, also to the oath of alle-
giance to Augustus which, according to Joscplius, the Jews were
forced to take even during the lifetime of Herod.er From which it
is inferred tliat Augustus, since he had it in contemplation after the
dcatli of Herod to restrict the power of his sons, was very likely to
have commanded a census in tlie laat years of that prince. ** But

* Joseph. Antiq. 17, 13. 2. B. j. 2, 7, 3.   + Antiq. 17, 13, 5, 18, 1, 1. B. j. 2,
S, 1.   t Paulus, exeg. Uamlli. 1, a, S. 171. Winer, Libl. Kealworterbuch.   § Tacit.
Annal. 1, 11. yueton. Oetav. 101. But if in this document cipss puVtcal contrnvbantur i
ou'mfit.m cirmm sociorwiifiae in urmis; quot classes.TCfJiui^ prwmafn^ tnliiita aut vf-vUwiw.
et necvssif.fUf^ ac ftii'f/itmws: the number of troops and tile sum which tlie Jewish prince
had to furnish, might have been given without a Koman tax being levied in their land.
For Judca in particular Augustus had before him the subsequent census made by Quiri-
nusi   || "OTt, 7ru/-at ^pu^vof; avr(.> ^;^CJ, vvv VTrijK.ot^ ^p^aerai,. Joseph. Antiq. 1G, 9, 3.
lint tlie dilt'rreiice. was adjusted lung before the death of Herod. Antiq. 1(1, 10, 9.  ^[ Jo-
seph. Antiq. 17, 2, 4. Trarroc TOV 'lov^aiKov pepaiufJavrof; 61 upauv. rj fn/v ei'ToP/aal, KaiWpt
Kit TOC(; (Saci^s^ 7~pa^'^n(7i. That this oatii, far from being a humiliating me;isure for
Herod, cuincided with his interest, is proved by the zeal with which lie punished the
Pharisees wlui refused to take it, ** Tholuck, S, 192 f. But the insurrection which the
u.-oyfMi'jiii at'ter tlie depositions of Arehelau.s actually occasioned-a fact which outweighs

BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS.           147

it seems more probable that it took place shortly after the deatli of
Herod, from tlie circumstance that Archelaus went to Rome concern-
ing the matter of succession, and that during his absence, tlie Ro-
man procurator Sabinus occupied Jerusalem, and oppressed the Jews
by every possible means.*

(" Tlie Evangelist relieves us from a farther inquiry into this more
or less historical or arbitrary combination by adding, that tills tax-
ing was first made wlicn Cyrcmus (Quirinus) was governor of Sy-
ria, riyefiovKvovro^ -i]<- 'S.vpla.o K.vprjvlov; for it is an authenticated point
tliat tlie assessment of Quirinua did not take place either under He-
rod or early in tlie rci^'n of Archelaus, tlie period at which, according
to Luke, Jesus was born.  Quirinus was not at tliat time governor
of Syria, a situation lield during tlie last years of Herod hy Sentiu.3
Saturnmus, and after him by Quintilius Varus ; and it was not till
long after the death of Herod tliat Quirinus was appointed governor
of Syria. Tliat Quirinus undertook a census of Judca we know
certainly from Joscplius,f wlio, however, remarks that lie was sent
to execute this measure, ~ij(; 'Ap^eXdov %wpa^ etc E-rap^iav nepl-ypa^ei-
<7?;c, or vTrorc/lovc '-pocwep^eiff^i TTJ Svpuv,^ thus about ten years
after tlie time at which, according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus must
have been horn.

Yet commentators have supposed it possible to reconcile this ap-
parently undeniable contradiction between Luke and history.  The
most dauntless explain the wliole of the second verse as a gloss,
which was early incorporated into the tcxt.§ Some cliangc tlie read-
ing of the verse; cither of tlie nomen _prqprium, by substituting
tlie name of Saturninus or Quintilius, || according to the example of
Tertullian, wlio ascribed tlie census to tlie former :^[ or of tlie other
words, by various additions and modifications.  Paulus's alteration
is tlie most simple. He reads, instead of awrj, avr-q, and concludes,
from tlie reasons stated above, tliat. Augustus actually gave orders
for a census during the reign of Herod I., and that tlie order was
so far carried out as to occasion tlie journey of Joseph and Mary to
Bethlehem; 'but tliat Augustus being afterwards conciliated, the
measure was abandoned, and OVT^T] aTroypa^^ w-as only carried into
effect a considerable time later, by Quirinus. Trifling as this alter-
ation, which leaves tlie letters unchanged, may appear, in order to
render it, admissible it must be supported by the. context.  Tlie re-
verse, however, is tlie fact. For if one sentence narrates a com-
mand issued by a prince, and tlie very next sentence its execution,
it is not probable tliat a space of ten years intervened. But chiefly,
according to tills view the Evangelist speaks, verse 1, of the decree
ot tlie emperor; verse 2, of tlie census made ten years later; but
verse 3, without any remark, again of a journey performed at the

* Antiq. 17, 9, 3. 10, 1 ft: B. j, 2, 1. 2, His oppressions however had reference
only to tlie fortresses and the treasures of Herod.   + Antiq 18, 1, 1.  \ Bell. jud. 2, 8,
I. 9, 1. Antiq, 17, 13, 5.  § Kuinol, Comm. in Luc. p. 320.   |1 Winer. \ Adv. Man-

148

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

time tlie command was issued; which, in a rational narrative, is im-
possible. Opposed to sucli arbitrary conjectures, and always to be
ranked above them, are the attempts to solve a difficulty by legiti-
mate methods of interpretation.  Truly, however, to take Trpw-rf in
tilis connexion for wpo-epa, and f]yEp,ovevov-o(; K. not for a geni-
tive 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 r^p'o T?JC after
•n-ptii-r^f is no less uncritical. As little is it to be admitted that some
preliminary measure, in wliicli Quirinus was not employed, perhaps
the already mentioned oath of allegiance, took place during the life-
time of Herod, in reference to tlie census subsequently made by Qui-
rinus ; and that tills preliminary step and the census were afterwards
comprised under tlie same name.  In order in some degree to ac-
count for tills appellation, Quirinus is said to have been sent into
Judca, in Herod's time, as an extraordinary tax-commissioner;;: but
this interpretation of tlie word flye^iovevov-og is rendered impossible
bv tlie addition of the word ^vplac;, in combination with which the
expression can denote only the frcsses Syria;.

Thus at the time at which Jesus, according to Matth. ii., 1, and
Luke L, 5, 26. was born, tlie census of wliicli Luke ii., 1 f. speaks
could not have taken place; so tliat if tlie former statements are
correct, tlie latter must be false. But. may not tlie reverse be tlie
fact, and Jesus have been born after tlie banishment of Archelaus,
and at tlie time of tlie census of Quirinus ? Apart from tlie difficul-
ties in which this hypothesis would involve us in relation to tlie
chronology of the future life of Jesus, a Roman census, subsequent
to tlie banishment of Archelaus, would not have taken tlie parents
of Jesus from Nazareth in Gralilee to Bethlehem in Judea. For Ju-
dea only, and wliat 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
Ills subjects dwelling at Nazareth could have been called to Bethle-
hem by tlie census. The Evangelist therefore, in order to get a
census, must have conceived tlie condition of things such as they
were after tlie deposition of Archelaus; but in order to get a census
extending to Galilee, lie must have imagined tlie kingdom to liavc
continued undivided, as in tlie time of Herod tlie Great. Thus lie
deals in manifest contradictions; or rather he lias an exceedingly
sorry acquaintance with the political relations of that, period ; for lie
extends tlie 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 tlie diffi-
culties which beset this statement of Luke. His representation of
the manner in which tlie census was made is subject to objection.

* Storr, opusc. acad. 3, S, 126 f. Silskind, vcrmischte Airfsiitze, S. G3. Tholuck
S. 182 f. t Michaelis. Anm. z. d. St. und Einl. in d. N. T. 1, 71.   t Munter, Stern der

149

BIKTII AND EARLY LIFE OP JESUS.

In the first place it is said, tlie taxing took Joseph to Bethlehem,
Because he vas of the house and lineage of J}avid, 6ia .TO dvai a-6-
r'ov eS; O'IKOV HIM Trarptac Aa(3(d, and likewise every one into Ills own
city, dc; r^v ISiav TTO^IV, i. e. according to the context, to tlie place
wlience his family had originally spruna".  Now, tliat every individ-
ual should be registered in his own city was required in all Jewisli
inscriptions, because among the Jews tlie organization of families
and tribes constituted tlie very basis of the state. Tlie Romans, on
the contrary, were in the liabit of taking tlie census at the resi-
dences, and at tlie principal cities in the district. * They conformed
to tlie usages of tlie conquered countries only in so far as they did
not interfere witli their own objects.  In the present instance it
would have been directly contrary to their design, liad they removed
individuals-Joseph for example-to a great distance, where the
amount of their property was not known, and their statement con-
cerning it could not be checked.! Tlie view of Schleiermachcr is
the more admissible, that tlie real occasion wliicli took tlie parents
to Bethlehem was a sacerdotal inscription, which the Evangelist con-
founded witli the better known census of Quirinus. But tilis con-
cession does not obviate tlie contradiction in tilis dubious statement
of Luke. He allows Mary to be inscribed witli Josepli, but accord-
ing 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 lier betrothed in his own
city.  Or, if with Paulus we remove tilis inaccuracy by a forced
construction of the sentence, we can no longer perceive wliat induce-
ment, could have instigated Marv, in her particular situation, to make
so long a journey, since, unless we adopt tlie airy hypothesis of
Olsliausen and others, that Mary was the heiress of property in Beth-
lehem, slie had nothing to do there.

The Evangelist, however, knew perfectly well wliat slie had to
do there; namely, to fulfil the prophecy of Micali (v. 1), by giving
birth, in the city of David, to tlie Messiah. Now as he set out with
the supposition tliat tlie habitual abode of tlie parents of Jesus was
Nazareth, so he sought after a lever which should set them in mo-
tion towards Bethlehem, at tlie time of tlie birth of Jesus, far and
wide nothing presented itself but the celebrated census; lie seized
it tlie more unhesitatingly because the obscurity of Ills own view of
tlie historical relations of that time, veiled from him tlie many diffi-
culties connected »yith such a combination. If tins be tlie true his-
tory of the statement in Luke, we must agree witli K. Oh. L.
Schmidt when lie says, that to attempt to reconcile tlie statement
ot Luke concerning tlie dnoypa^'j with chronology, -would be to do
the narrator too much honour; lie wished to place Mary in Beth-
lehem, and therefore times and circumstances were to accommodate
themselves to his pleasure, t

* I'aulug. Wettstcin.   ) Crcdner.   f In Schmidt's Bililiotliek fur Kritik und F.xe-
K«se, 8. 1. S. 124.  See Kaisi-r. liil)!. Thfiol. 1- S. 2:-SO : Aminon. Fortbildilila-. 1. S. \W; •

150

THE LIFE OP JESUS.

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

§ 33.  PAETICULAE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS--THE
CIRCUMCISION.

THE basis of the narrative, the arrival of Joseph and Mary as
strangers in Bethlehem on account of tlic census, being once chosen
by Luke, tlic farther details are consistently built upon it. In con-
sequence of tlie influx of strangers brought to Bethlehem by the
census, tliere is no room for tlie travellers in tlic inn, and they are
compelled to put up with tlie accommodation of^i stable where Mary-
is forthwith delivered of her first-born.  But tlic clilld, who upon
earth comes into being in so humble an abode, is highly regarded iu
heaven. A celestial messenger announces tlic birth of tlic Messiah,
to shepherds who are guarding their flocks in tlic fields by night,
and directs them to tlic cliild in tlic maii'.wr. A choir of tlie heav-

0

only liost singing hymns of praise next appears to them, after which
they seek and find tlic cliild. (Luke ii. G-20.) \

Tlie apocryphal gospels and tlie traditions of tlic Fathers still
further embellished tlie birth of Jesus. According to tlic Prot-
evangdium Jacobi* Joscpli conducts Mary on an ass to Bethlehem
to be taxed. As tlicy approach tlic city slie begins to make now
mournful, now joyous gestures, and upon inquiry explains that-
(as onec in Kebccca's womb tlic two hostile nations struggled, Gen.
xxv. l?3)-she sees two people before licr, tlie one weeping, tlie
oilier laughing: i. e. according to one explanation, the two portions
of Israel, to one of whom tlic advent of Jesus icas set (Luke il. 34)
elf Tr-uaiv, for the fall, to tlio other eic; avda-aciv, for the rising
again.  According to another interpretation, tlie two people were
the Jews wlio should reject Jesus, and tlic heathens who sliould ac-
cept liiin.t Soon, however, whilst still without tlic city-as appears
from tlic context and tlie reading of several MSS-Mary is seized
witli tlie pains of clii Id-bearing, and Josepli brings her into a cave
situated by tlie road side, where veiled by a cloud of liglit, all na-
ture pausing in celebration of the event, slic brings her child into
tlic world, and after licr delivery is found, by women called to her
assistance, still a virgin.t The legend of tlie birth of Jesus in a
cave was known to JustiuS and to Origcn,|| wlio, in order to recon-
cile it witli tlie account in Luke tliat lie was laid in a manger, sup-
pose a manger situated within tlie cave. Many modern commentators

* Chap. 17. Compare Historia do nativ. Mariae ct de infantia Sorvatoria, c. 13.
• " ' • •   •  /-t ' - *--..-.-.i. -VT T < <a Af\\ nrit. v. + AmItTosius and Jerome. Sue

151

BIRTH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESL'S.

agree with them ;'* whilst others prefer to consider the cave itself as
<f)d-vi], in tlie sense of foddering-stall.t For the birtli of Jesus in a
cave, Justin appeals to tlie propliecy in Isaiah xxviii. 16 : ov~o<; (the
righteous) owyaei EV v^rjAu dT-rjAaM -n-e-pay la^vpa^. In like manner,
for tlie statement tliat on tlie tliird day the cliild Jesus, wlien brought
from tlie cave into the stable, was worshipped by the oxen and the
asses, tlie Ilnstorut de Jfativitate Mariae^. &c. refers to Isaiah i. 3:

cognovit bos possessorem sunm, et asinus praesepe domini sui. In
several apocryphas, between tlie Magi and the women wlio assist at
tlie birtli, tlie shepherds are forgotten ; but they are mentioned in
the Evangelzu'm infantiae arcibicum^ where it saya, tliat wlicn they
arrived at tlic cave, and had kindled a fire of rejoicing, tlic heavenly
host appeared to them.

If we take tlie circumstances attendins; tlie birth of Jesus, nar-

0                                  ~            '

rated by Luke, in a supranaturalistic sense, many difficulties occur.
First, it may reasonably be asked, to wliat end tlic angelic appari-
tion? Tlie 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 tlie first information of
tlie new-born kin^' of tlic Jews; and in the future history of Jesus,
no trace of any such occurrence at Ills birth is to be found. Conse-
quently, tlie object of tliat extraordinary phenomenon was not to
give a wide-spreading intimation of tlie fact; for if so, God failed
in his object.   Must we then agree witli Schlcicrmachcr, that tlie
aim was limited to an immediate operation upon tlie shepherds ?
Then we roust also suppose with him, tliat tlie shepherds, equally
witli Simeon, were filled witli Messianic expectations, and that God
designed by this apparition to reward and confirm their pious belief.
Tlic narrative however says nothing of tills heavenly frame of mind,
ncitlier docs it mention any abiding effects produced upon these men.
According to tlie whole tenor of tlie representation, the apparition
seems to have liad reference, not to tlie shepherds, but exclusively
to tlie glorification and the proclaiming of the birtli of Jesus, as the
Mcssiali.  But as before observed, tlic latter aim was not accom-
plished, and tlic former, by itself, like every mere empty display, is
an object unworthy of God.  So tliat this circumstance in itself
presents no inconsiderable obstacle to the supranaturalistic conception
of tlic history. If, to the above considerations, we add tliose already
stated which oppose tlie belief in apparitions and the existence of
angels in general, it is easy to understand that with respect to this
narrative also rcHi<Te lias been sought in a natural explanation.

Tlic results of the first attempts at a natural explanation were
certainly sufficiently rude. Thus Eck regarded tlie angel as a mes-
senger froni Bethlehem, wlio carried a light which caught tlie eye of
tlie shepherds, and tlic song of tlie heavenly host as the merry tones of
a party accompanying the messenger. || Paulus lias woven together

'''IIess.Olslianseii.Paulus. f Paulus. j: Chap. I*. § Chap. 4 InTliilo, S. ti;). HInseinem

152 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

a more refined and matter of fact explanation. Mary, who liad met
with a hospitable reception in a herdsman's family, and who was
naturally elated with tlic liope of giving birth to tlie Messiah, told
her expectations to tlic members of this family; to whom as inhabi-
tants ol ci city of David tlie communication could not have been
indifferent. These shepherds therefore on prcceivin"', whilst in the
fields by niglit, a luminous appearance in the air,-a phenomenon
which travellers say is not uncommon in those regions-they inter-
pret it as a divine intimation that the stranger in their foddering-stall
is delivered of the Mcssiali: and as the meteoric li"-ht extends and
moves to and fro, they take it for a choir of angels chaunting 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 tlie
sheplierds were previously acquainted witli Mary's expectation that
she should give birth to the Messiah. How otherwise should they
have been led to consider tlie sia;n as referring particularly to tlie
birth of the Messiali in their manger ? Yet tills very assumption is
the most direct contradiction of tlie gospel account.  For, in the
first place, tlie Evangelist evidently does not suppose the manger to
belong to tlie shepherds : since after lie lias narrated tlie delivery of
Mary in the manger, lie then goes on to speak of tlie shepherds as
a new and distinct, subject, not at all connected with the manger.
His words arc: and there mere in, the same country shepherds, nal
Trot^evec yaav iv ry %wpa vy av-rj. If this explanation were correct
he would, at all events, have said, the shepherds cC'c. ot 6s Trot/.tEye?
K. r. /L; besides lie would not have been wholly silent, respecting
the comings and goings of these shepherds during the day, and
their departure to guard tlie flock at tlie 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, slie parades the whole history of her ex-
pectations ? Again tlie sequel of tlie narrative contradicts tlie as-
sumption that the shepherds were informed of the matter by Mary
herself, before her delivery. Eor, according to tlic gospel history,
the shepherds receive tlic first intelligence of tlie birth of tlie Sav-
iour au-i'ip from the angel who appears to them, and wlio tells them,
as a sign of the truth of Ills communication, tliat they sliall find tlie
babe lying in a manger. Had they already heard from Mary of the
approaching birth of the Messiah, tlie 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

vtp.ninl n.ihiral nlienomenoH 80

153

BIETH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESUS.

inquire, whence, if neither a miraculous announcement nor a super-
natural conception actually occurred, could Mary have derived tlie
confident anticipation that she should give birth to the Mcssiali ?

In opposition to this natural explanation, so full of difficulties
on every side, Bauer announced his adoption of tlie mythical view ;*
in fact, however, ho did not advance one step beyond the interpre-
tation of the Rationalists, but actually repeated Paulus's exposition
point, for point. To tills mixed mythical explanation Gabler justly
objected that, it, equally with the natural interpretation, multiplies
improbabilities: by tlie adoption of the pure, dogmatic mythus,
every tiling appears simpler; thereby, at tlie same time, greater
harmony is introduced into the early Christian history, all the pre-
ceding narratives of which ouglit equally to be interpreted as pure
mytlii.t Gabler, accordingly, explained tlie narrative as tlie pro-
duct of tlic ideas of tlie age, which demanded the assistance of an-
gels at the birth of tlie Messiah. Now had it been known that Mary
was delivered in a dwelling belonging to shepherds, it would also
have been concluded tliat angels must have brought tlie tidings to
these good shepherds that the Messiali was born in their manger;

and tlic angels, who cease not praising God, must have sung a
hymn of praise on the occasion. Gabler thinks it impossible, tliat
a Jcwisli Christian wlio sliould liave known some of tlic data of tlie
birth of Jesus, could have thought of it otherwise than as here
depicted, j:

This explanation of Gabler shows, in a remarkable manner, how
difficult it is entirely to extricate oneself from the natural explana-
tion, and to rise completely to tlie mythical; for whilst tins theo-
logian believes lie treads on pure mythical ground, lie still stands
witli one foot upon that of the natural interpretation. He selects
from tlie account of Luke one incident as historical which, by its
connexion witli other unhistorical statements and its conformity to
the spirit of the primitive Christian legend, is proved to be merely
mythical; namely, tliat Jesus was really born in a shepherd's dwell-
ing. He also borrows an assumption from tlic natural explanation,
which tlie mythical needs not to obtrude on the text: tliat tlic
sheplierds to whom it is alleged the angels appeared, were tlie pos-
sessors of tlie manger in which Mary was delivered. Tlie first de-
tail, upon which tlic second is built, belongs to the same machinery
by which Luke, witli the help of the census, transported the parents
of Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Now we know wliat is the
fact respecting the census; it crumbles away inevitably before cri-
ticism, and with it tlie datum built entirely upon it, that Jesus was
born m a manger. For liad not tlie parents of Jesus been strangers,
and liad they not come to Bethlehem in company with so large a
concourse of strangers as the census might have occasioned, the

* IIeliraische Mythologic, 2. Till. S, 223 ff.  i- Eecension von Bauer's hebr. Mytho-
logio in U.ililer's Journal fur auserlesene tlieol. Literatur, 3, 1, S. OS f. ^ Neucstes thcol

154

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

cause which obliged Mary to accept a stable for her place of delivery
would no longer liave existed. But, on the other hand, tlie incident,
that Jesus was Lorn in a stable and saluted in the first instance by
shepherds, is so completely in accordance with tlic spirit, of the an-
cient legend, tliat 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 : tlie angels did not appear to the
scribes and pharisees of Jerusalem wlio wore full of all malice, Lut
to the shepherds, in the fields, on account of their simplicity and
innocence, and because tlicy by their mode of life were tlic succes-
sors of tlie patriarchs.* It was in tlie field by tlic flocks tliat Moses
was visited by a heavenly apparition (Exod. iii. 1 ff.); and God took
David, tlie forefather of tlic Messiah, from his shcepfolds (at Bcth-
Iclicm), to be tlie shepherd of his people. Psalm Ixxviii. 70. (comp.
1 Sam. xvi. 11.). The mytlii of tlic ancient world more generally
ascribed divine apparitions to countrymen f and shepherds; :j: the
sons of tlic gods, and of great men were frequently brought up
among slicplicrds.§ In tlie same spirit of the ancient legend is tlie
apocryphal invention tliat Jesus was born in a cave, and we are at
once reminded of tlic cave of Jupiter and of tlic other gods; even
though tlie misunderstood passage of Isaiah xxxiii. 1G. may liave
been tlic immediate occasion of tills 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 tlic deliverance from Egypt, should take place by
nigilt,^)-forms the obscure background against wliicli tlic mani-
fested glory of the .Lord slionc so much the more brilliantly, wliich,
as it is said to liave glorified the birth of Moses,** could not have
been absent from that of tlic Messiah, his exalted antitype.

The mythical interpretation of this section of the gospel liistory
lias found an opponent in Sclilcicrmacher.tt He thinks it improb-
able tliat tills commencement of tlie second chapter of Luke is a
continuation of tlie first, written by tlic same author; because tlic fre-
quent opportunities of introducing lyrical effusions-as for example,
wlicu tlie shepherds returned glorifying and praising God, v. 20-
are not, taken advantage of as in tlie first chapter; and here in-
deed we can in some measure agree witli him. But wlicn lie adds
that a decidedly poetical character cannot be ascribed to this narra-
tive, since a poetical composition would oi' necessity have contained
more of tlie lyrical, tills only proves tliat Sclilclermaclicr lias not
justly apprehended tlie notion of tliat kind of poetry of which lie
here treats, namely, tlie poetry of tlie mytlius. In a word, myth-
ical poetry is objective: the poetical exists in tlie substance of

* In Luc. 3. in Suiccr 3, p. 789 f.   t Servius ad Virg. Eel. 10, 2R.   { Liban pro-
Rymn. p. l;i8, in Wetstein, S. (i62.   § Thus Cvrus, see llerod. 1, 111) It',  lluniiilus, see
Livy, 1, 4.  || Thilo, Codex, Apocr. N. T. 1, S^ 38;{, not.  <I Vid. a<'liottgen, 2, S. .-)31.
•** >Sota, 1, 4S: Supii-ntes nostri perhll/ent, circii horam nnliiilatii Miw'if tiitnm d'liiiunt
™»7..»o,,, <•„;„,„ ;„„<> /\v,,tai,,;n\    -H- I'pl.pr ih,n I.ukas. S. 29 f. Wiili wlioni Xriuidiir

BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS.

155

the narrative, and may therefore appear in the plainest form, free
from all tlie adornments oflvrical effusions; which latter are rather
only tlic subsequent additions of a more intelligent and artificially
elaborated subjective poetry.* Undoubtedly tills section seems to
have been preserved to us more nearly in its original legendary
form, wliilst tlic 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 tliat account to be sought here any
more than there. Consequently tlic obligation wliicli Sclilclermaclicr
further imposes upon himself, to trace out tlic source of tills narrative
in tlie gospel of Luke, can only be regarded as an exercise of inge-
nuity.  He refuses to recognize tliat source in Mary, though a ref-
erence to her might liave been found in tlie observation, v. 19, she
Jcept all these sayings in, Jier heart; wherein indeed lie is tlic more
right, since tliat observation (a fact to which Schlciermacher does
not advert) is merely a phrase borrowed from tlic liistory of Jacob
and his son Joseph, f For as the narrative in Genesis relates of
Jacob, tlic father of Joseph, tliat cliild of miracle, tliat, wlien the
latter told Ills significant dreams, and his brethren envied him, his
father observed the saying: so tlie narrative in Luke, both here
and at verse 51, relates of Mary, tliat slie, whilst others gave ut-
terance aloud to their admiration at tlie extraordinary occurrences
wliich happened to lier cliild, Iwpt all these things and pondered
them in he/' heart.  But tlie above named theologian points out
the shepherds instead of Mary as tlic source of our narrative, alleg-
ing tliat all tlie details are given, not from Mary's point of view,
but from tliat of tlie shepherds. More truly however is tlie point of
view tliat of the legend wdiich supersedes both.  If Schleicrmachcr
finds it impossible to believe tliat tills narrative is an air bubble
conglomerated out of nothing; he must include under the word noth-
ing the Jewish and early Christian ideas-concerning Bethlehem,
as tlie necessary birtliplace of tlie Messiah; concerning tlie condition
of the shepherd, as being peculiarly favoured by communications
from heaven; conccrnin"' angels, as tlie intermediate agents in such
communications-notions, we on our side cannot possibly hold in
so little estimation, but we find it easy to conceive tliat something
similar to our narrative might liave formed itself out of them.  Fi-
nally, when lie finds an adventitious or designed invention impossible,
because tlie Christians of that district might easily have inquired of
Mary or of the disciples concerning the truth of tlie matter: he
speaks too nearly tlie language of the ancient apologists, and pre-

* Comp. Ue Wette, Kritik der mosaischen Geschichte, s. ll(i; George, Mythus u.
Sage, s. 3;i f.

t Gen. xxxvii. ll(LXX):                       Luc. 3, 18 f.
'E^^OCTcn' SE aiirbv ol u^T^ot avtov. 6 6^  Kai TTUVT£<; ol uKovcavTeo E{}ar^aaav. •

? (ie M-apiu/z TTuvTa ciiverr/pu TO p-^uara raii-
Tff, fWu3a}J^ovn(i (•v ry /(Op(^i avr^. 2, 51 i
Kai T] fir/T7jt) a'i'rov (^srp/pE't Trui-'ra ra peuaTd

naTijp O.VTOV Svniprjae TO firjfia.-Schcett-
gen, horse, 1, 262,

156

THE LIFE OP JESCS.

supposes the ubiquity of tliese persons,* already alluded to in the
Introduction, who however could not possibly liave been in all
places rectifying tlie 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 liad no real advice of the fact, but
who assumed as a certainty that, according to Jewish custom, the
ceremony took place on tlie eiglitli day, and wlio was desirous of
commemorating this important event in the life of an Israelitish
boy ;t in like manner as Paul (Pliil. iii. 5.) records his circumcision
on tlie eighth day. The contrast however between tlie fullness of
detail witli wliicli tills point is elaborated and coloured in tlie life of
the Baptist, and tlie barrenness and brevity with which it is stated
in" reference to Jesus, is striking, and may justify an agreement
with tlie remark of Schleiermaclier, that. here, at least tlie author of
the first cliaptcr is no longer tlie originator.  Such being tlie state
of the case, this statement furnishes nothing for our object, wliicli
we might not already have known; only we have till now had no
opportunity of observing, distinctly, tliat tlie pretcntcd appointment
of tlie name of Jesus before his birth likewise belongs merely to the
mythical dress of the narrative. When it is said A.is name was
called t/rA'M.s, zcJdch u'as so named of the angel before Jie 'was con-
ceived in tlie wornb, the importance attached to tlie circumstance is
a clear sign, that, a dogmatic interest lies at the bottom of this feat-
ure in tlie 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 Jolin--
that tlie names of these children were, respectively, revealed to
their parents prior to their birth, and on account of which interest
the rabbins in particular, expected that the same thing sliould occur
in relation to tlie name of tlie Messiah.^ Without doubt there were
likewise other far more natural reasons which induced tlie parents
of Jesus to give him this name (''a^n an abbreviation of SW; o Kvpto?
ow-ripin^ a name which was very common among his countrymen;

but because this name agreed in a remarkable manner with tlie path
of life subsequently chosen by him as Messiah and (wr^p, it was
not thought possible that tins coincidence could have been accidental.
Besides it seemed more appropriate that the name of the Messiah
sliould have been determined by divine command tlian by human
arbitration, and consequently the appointment of the name was as-
cribed to tlie same angel who had announced, the conception of
Jesus.

* See Introduction.  •]• Perhaps as a precautionary measure to obviate objections on
tlie part of the Jews.  (Amnion, Fortbildung 1, S. 2L7.)   f Pirke R. Elu-ser, 33 : Sex
tiommum nomma dicta sunf^ aniequam nasf'i'!\'iitur : Isaaci ne'mpe^ fsmaelis, Mosis^ Sa-lo-
mom'^^ Josiw et nomcn re/fifi MC'.S-.SKC.  Bcn'schith raliba, sect. 1, lol. 3, 3.-(Schottgen, ho-
r.r, r, s. 436.) : Sex ri's pricvi.'nc'runt cn'atiuncm nninili : qua-darn ex illis creata; sunt,
ni.inrir 1i.x Kt. thronus e'luri.r ; ali.c ascrndcriiiit in coi;'itationem (Dui) ut crcarcntur, ni-

BIRTH AND EAELT LIFE OF JESUS.

157

§ 34.  THE MAGI AND THEIE STAE--THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT AND
THE MUEDEE OF THE CHILDEEN IN BETHLEHEM--CEITICI8M OF THE
SUPEANATUEALISTIC VIEW.

IN the Gospel of Matthew also we have a narrative of the Mes-
siah's entrance into the world; it differs considerably in detail from
tliat of Luke, which we have just examined, but in the former part
of the two accounts there is a general similarity (Matt. ii. 1 ft.).
The object of both narratives is to describe the solemn introduction
of the Messianic infant, tlie heralding of his birth undertaken by
heaven itself, and his first reception among men.*  In both, atten-
tion 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 tlie apparitions arc different, so according-
ly are the recipients; tlie angel addresses simple shepherds; the
star is discovered by eastern magi, who are able to interpret for them-
selves tlie voiceless sign.  Both parties are directed to Bethlehem;

the shepherds by tlie words of the angel, tlie magi by tlie instructions
they obtain in Jerusalem; and both do homage to tlie infant; the
poor shepherds by singing hymns of praise, the magi by costly pres-
ents from their native country. But from this point the two nar-
ratives begin to diverge widely. In Luke all proceeds happily;

the shepherds return with gladness in their hearts, the child expe-
riences no molestation, he is presented in tlie temple on the appoint-
ed day, thrives and grows up in tranquillity. In Matthew, on the
contrary, affairs take a tragical turn. The inquiry of tlie wise men
in Jerusalem concerning the new-born King of the Jews, is the oc-
casion of a murderous decree on the part of Herod against the chil-
dren of Bethlehem, a danger from which the infant Jesus is rescued
only by a sudden flight into Egypt, whence lie and his parents do
not return to tlie Holy Land till after the death of Herod.

Thus we have here a. double proclamation of the Messianic child:

we might, however, suppose that tlie one by tlie angel, in Luke,
would announce the birth of the Messiah to" the immediate neigh-
bourhood ; the other, by means of the star, to distant lands. But
as according to Matthew, the birth of Jesus became known at Je-
rusalem, which was in tlie 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.), tliat which liad 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 tliat the birth of Jesus was made known
in tlie neighbourhood of Bethlehem as Luke states, by an angelic
communication to the shepherds, Mattliew must be in error wlicn
lie represents the first intelligence of tlie event as subsequently
brought to Jerusalem (which is only from two to three liours distant
from Bethlehem) by the magi. But as we have recognized many
indications of tlie unhistorical character of the announcement bv tlie

THE LIFE OF JESL'S.

158

shepherds given in Luke, tlie 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
tlic birth of tlic Messiah. That eastern magi should have know-
ledge of a King of tlie 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 tlic east tliat a ruler of tlie world would arise from among the
Jewish people,'* we pass on to a yet more weighty difficulty. Ac-
cording to tills narrative it appears, that astrology is right wlien it
asserts tliat the birth of great men and important rcvohvf-ions in
human affairs are indicated by astral phenomena; an opinion long
since consigned to tlie region of superstition. It ig therefore to be
explained, how tills deceptive science could in tins solitary instance
prove true, though in no other case arc its inferences to be relied on.
Tlic most obvious explanation, from tlic orthodox point of view, is
an appeal to tlic supernatural intervention of God; who, in tills
particular instance, in order to bring tlie distant magi unto Jesus,
accommodated himself to their astrological notions, and caused the
anticipated star to appear. But the adoption of tills expedient in-
volves very serious consequences.  For tlic coincidence of the re-
markable sequel with tlie astrological prognostic could not fail to
strengthen tlic belief, not only of tlie magi and their fellow-coun-
trymen, but also of tlie Jews and Christians wlio were acquainted
witli tlie circumstances, in tlic spurious science of astrology, thereby
creating incalculable error and mischief. 1f therefore it be 'inadvis-
able to admit an extraordinary divine intervention,f and if the posi-
tion tliat in tlic ordinary course of nature, important occurrences on
this earth arc attended by cliangcs in tlie heavenly bodies, be aban-
doned, the only remaining explanation lies in tlie supposition of an
accidental coincidence.  But to appeal to chance is in fact cither to
say nothing, or to renounce the supranaturalistic point of view.

But tlic orthodox view of tills account not only sanctions the
false science of astrology, but also confirms tlie false interpretation
of a passage in tlie prophets. For as tlie magi, following their star,
proceed in the rig-lit direction, so the chief priests and scribes of Je-
rusalem whom Ilerod, on learning tlie arrival and object of tlie magi,
summons before him and questions concerning tlie birth-place of the
King of tlic Jews, interpret tlie passage in Micah v. 1. as signifying
that tlie Messiali sliould be born in Bethlehem; and to this signifi-
cation tlie event corresponds. Now such an application of tlie above

* Josepli, B. J. vi. vi. 4 : Tacit. Histor. v. 13; Sueton. Vespas. 4. All tlie extant
allusions to tile existence of such a hope at the era of Christ's birth, relate only in an in-
determinate manner to a rnler of the world. Virg. Eclog. 4; Sueton. Octav. 94.   f la
saying tliat it is inadmissible to suppose a divine intervention directly tending to counte-
nance superstition, I refer to what is called immediate intervention. In tlic doctrine of

BIKTII AND EAKLY LIFE OF JESUS.

159

passage can only be made by forcing tlie words from tlieir true
meaning and from all relation with the context, according to the
well-known practice of tlie rabbins. For independently of tlic ques-
tion whether or not under tlie word ^'3'ia in the passage cited, the
Messiah be intended, the entire context shows tlie meaning to be,
not tliat tlie expected governor wlio was to come forth out of Beth-
lehem would actually be born in that city, but only tliat lie would
be a descendant of David, whose family sprang from Bethlehem.*
TIius allowing the magi to have been rightly directed by means of
tlie rabbinical exegesis of tlie oracle, a false interpretation must hayc
hit on tlie truth, either by means of divine intervention and accom-
modation, or by accident.  Tlie judgment pronounced in the case
of the star is applicable here also.

After receiving the above answer from the Sanhedrim, Ilerod
summons tlie magi before him, and his first question concerns tlie
time at which tlie star appeared (v. 7.). Why did lie wisli to know
this?f Tlic 16th verse tells us; tliat he might thereby calculate
tlie age of tlic Messianic cliild, and thus ascertain up to wliat age it
would be necessary for him to put to deatli tlie. children of Bethle-
hem, so as not to miss the one announced by the star.  But tills
plan of murdering all the children of Bethlehem up to a certain age,
tliat lie might destroy the one likely to prove fatal to tlic interests
of his family, was not conceived by Ilerod until after the magi liad
disappointed his expectation that they would return to Jerusalem;

a deception which, if we may ]udge from his violent anger on ac-
count of it (v. 16) Herod liad by no means anticipated.  Prior to
flits, according to v. 8, it had been his intention to obtain from the
magi, on their return, so close a description of tlic cliild, his dwelling
and circumstances, that it would be easy for him to remove Ills in-
fantine rival without sacrificing any oilier 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 tlie execution of which
it was necessary for him to know tlie time of the star's appearance, j:

How fortunate for him, then, tliat lie liad ascertained this time be-
fore he liad decided on tlie plan tliat made the information important;

but liow inconceivable tliat he sliould 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 tlie second place, commissions the magi to acquaint.
themselves accurately witli all tliat concerns tlie royal infant, and
to impart tlieir knowledge to him on tlieir return, tliat lie also may
go and tender Ills liomage to tlie child, that is, according to his real
meaning, take sure measures for putting him to death (v. 8.). Such

* Paulns and Ue Wette, exeg. ITandb. in loc.  f According to Hoffmann (p. 256), tliat
he might control tlie assertion of tlie magi by inquiring of his own astrologers, whether
they had seen tlie star at the same time. '1 his is not merely unsupported by tlie text-it is
in direct contradiction to it, for we are there told tliat Herod at once gave trrrilied cre-
dence to the ni;igi.   ^ Fritzsche, in loc. antiv auvs-rniniwrf^ nuns', m,i,,ns sin n,t »» .-..-

160 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

a proceeding on the part of an astute monarch like Herod lias long
been lield improbable.* Even if he hoped to deceive the magi,
while in conference with them, by adopting tills friendly mask, lie
must necessarily foresee that others would presently awaken them
to the probability that lie harboured evil designs against the cliild,
and thus prevent them from returning according to his injunction.
He min;ht conjecture that tlie parents oflhc child on hearing of the
ominous interest taken in him. by the king, would seek Ilia safety
by flight, and finally, that those inhabitants of Bethlehem and its
environs wlio cherished Messianic expectations, would be not a little
confirmed in them by tlic arrival of the magi. On all these grounds,
Herod's only prudent measure would have been either to detain the
magi in Jerusalem,f and in the meantime by means of secret emis-
saries to dispatch tlie cliild to whom sucli peculiar liopes were at-
tached, and who must have been easy of discovery in the little vil-
lage 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 tlie observation that
tlie histories of all ages present unaccountable instances of forgetful-
ness-a proof that the course of human events is guided by a su-
preme hand. When tlie supcrnaturalist invokes tlie 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
tlie 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 substi-
tution in this particular case, if it could be proved that there was no
oilier possible mode of rescuing Jesus from a fate inconsistent with
tlie 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 tlie disastrous sequel perhaps have been alto-
gether avoided ?{ The supranaturalist has no answer to this ques-
tion but tlie old-fashioned argument that it was good for tlie 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.§

* K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beitriige, 1, S. 150 f. Comp. Fritzsche and De Wetle in
loc. f IIofi'mann thinks that Herod shunned this measure as a breach of hospitality; yet
tills very Herod he represents as a monster of cruelty, and that justly, for tlie conduct at-
tributed to tlie monarch in chap. ii. of Matth. is not unworthy of his heart, against which

"      '             "      '              /    "^ *• \  '   - -'' t-=- 1..-...4      + Q,,LmiiU lit. aim. n. 155 f.

BIRTH AND EAKLY LIFE OF JESUS.           161

The magi leave Jerusalem by night, the favourite time for tra-
velling in tlie cast. The star, which tlicy seem to have lost siglit
of since their departure from home, again appears and goes before
them on the road to Bethlehem, until at length it remains stationary
over tlie house that contains the wondrous child and its parents.
The way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem lies southward; now tlie
true path of erratic stars is either from west to east, as tliat of tlie
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 tlie true motion of all these bodies is so ereativ surpassed
by their apparent motion from east to west produced by the rotation
of tlie earth on its axis, that it is imperceptible except at consider-
able intervals. Even tlie diurnal movement of tlie 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 tlie same direction through infinite space; it
cannot therefore stand still over a particular house and thus induce
a traveller to halt tlicre also; on. tlie contrary, tlie traveller liimself
must halt before tlic star will appear stationary. Tlie 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 law7 of motion and rest.* Again, this could
not have been a true star, moving among tlie systems of our firma-
ment, for such an one, however impelled and arrested, could never,
according to optical laws, appear to pause over a particular liouse.
It must therefore have been something lower, hovering over the
earth's surface: lience some of tlie Fathers and apocryphal writers!
supposed it to have been an angel, which, doubtless, might fly be-
fore the magi in the form of a star, and take its station at a mode-
rate lieiglit above tlie house of Mary in Bethlehem; more modem
theologians have conjectured that the phenomenon was a meteor.^:

Botli 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 appear-
ance, by an expression that implies a merely iiatural object, as darflp
(a star'); tlie latter, because a mere meteor would not last for so long
a time as must have elapsed between tlie departure of the magi from
their remote home and their arrival in Bethlehem. Perhaps, how-
ever, it will be contended that God created one meteor for the first
monition, and another for the second.

Many, even of tlie orthodox expositors, liave found tliese diffi-
culties in relation to tlic star so pressing, that they have striven to
escape at any cost from tlie admission that, it preceded the magi in
their way towards Bethlehem, and took its station directly over a

* This was the opinion of some of the Fathers, e. g. Euseb. Demonstr. evang. 9, ap.
Suicer, 1, S. 559; Joann. Damasc. de fide orthod. ii. 7.   f Chrysostomus and others ap.

162

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

particular house.  According to Suskind, whose explanation has
been much approved, tlie verb -^poTjyEv (went before) (v. 9) which is
in the imperfect tense, docs not signify that the star visibly led th"
magi on tlieir way, but is equivalent to the pluperfect, which would
imply tliat. tlie star liad been invisibly transferred to the destination
of tlie ma^-i before their arrival, so that tlie Evangelist intends to
say: the star which tlie magi liad seen in the east and subsequently
lost sigl'.t of, suddenly made its appearance to them in Bethlehem
above the house they were seeking; it liad therefore preceded them.*
But thia is a transplantation of rationalistic artifice into the soil of or-
thodox exegesis.  Not only tlie word -rpo»)yev, but tlie less flexible
expressions e^c iA-Swv it. r. X. {till if. came, &c.) denotes that tlie
transit of the stai\was not an already completed phenomenon, but
one brought to pass under tlie observation of tlie magi. Expositors
who pcrsL?t in denying tills must, to t»e consistent, go still farther,
and reduce the entire narrative to tlie standard of merely natural
events.  So when Olshauson 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 tlie issue as well as tlie commencement ot tlieir journey to
a, heavenly guide :f lie deserts his own point of view for that of tlie
rationalist?, and interlines the text witli explanatory particulars, an
expedient wliieli lie elsewhere justly condemns in Paulas and others.

Tlie magi then enter tlie house, offer tlieir adoration to tlie infant,
and present to him gifts, the productions of tlieir native country.
One might wonder tliat there is no notice of tlie astonishment wliieli
it must have excited in these men to find, instead of the expected
prince, a child in quite ordinary, perhaps indigent circumstances, j:

It is not fair, however, to heighten tlie contrast by supposing, accor-
din"' to the common notion, that the mao'i discovered the cliild in

o                                                     •                              0

a stable lying in tlie manger; for this representation is peculiar to
Luke, and is altogether unknown to Matthew, who merely speaks
of a house, olnia, in which tlie cliild was found. Then follows (v. 10.)
the warnin"' given to tlie magi in a dream, concerning wliieli, as be-
fore remarked, it were only to he wislied tliat it had been vouch-
safed earlier, so as to avert tlie steps of tlie magi from Jerusalem,
and thus perchance prevent the whole subsequent massacre.

While Herod awaits tlie return of the magi, Joseph is admo-
nished by an angelic apparition in a dream to rice witli tlie Messi-
anic child and its mother into Egypt for security (v. 13--15.).
Adopting the evangelist's point of view, this is not attended witli
any difiiculty: it is otherwise, however, witli the prophecy which
the above event is said to fulfil, Hosea, xi. 1. In tills passage the
prophet, speaking in tlie name of Jehovah, says: When Israel
was a child, then. I loved him, and called IWJ son out of Egypt.
We may venture to attribute, even to the most orthodox expositor,

BIETH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESL-S.            163

enough clear-siglitedness to perceive that the subject of tlie first
half of tlie sentence is also tlie object of the second, namely tlie
poepic of Israel, wlio here, as elsewhere, (e. g. Exod. iv. 22. Sirach
xxxvi, 14.) arc collectively called tlie Son of God, and wliose past
deliverance under Moses out of tlieir Egyptian bondage is the fact
referred to: tliat consequently, the prophet was not contemplating
either tlie Messiah or his sojourn in Egvpt.  Nevertheless as our
evangelist says, v. 15. tliat the flight of Jesus into Egypt took place
expressly tliat the above words of Hosea, might be fulnlted, he must
have understood them a,s a prophecy relating to Christ-must, there-
fore, have misunderstood them.  It lias been pretended tliat tlie
passage lias a iwofold application, and, though referring primarily
to the Israchtish pocple, is not tlie less a prophecy relative to Christ,
because the destiny of Israel "after the flesh" was a type of the
distiny of Jesus. But tills convenient method of interpretation is
not applicable here, for tlie analogy would, in tlie present case, he
altogether external and inane, since the only parallel consists in tlie
bare fact in botli instances of a sojourn in Egypt, tlie circumstances
under which the Israel itish pocple and the child Jesus sojourned
there being altogether diverse.*

W^icn tlie return of tlie magi lias been delayed long enough for
Herod to become aware tliat they have no intention to keep faith
witli him, lie decrees tlie death of all tlie 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 tlie tune of the star's appearance,
the utmost interval that could have elapsed since tlie birth of the
Messianic cliild. (16-18.) Tin's was, beyond all question, an act
of tlie blindest fury, for Herod might easily have informed himself
whether a cliild who liad received rare and costly presents was yet
to be found in Bethlehem : but even granting it not inconsistent
witli the disposition of the aged tvrant to the extent tliat Schleier-
maclier supposed, it were in any case to be expected tliat so unpre-
cedented and revolting a massacre would be noticed by other histo-
rians than Matthew, f But neither Jo::cphus, who is very minute
in Ins account of Herod, nor the rabbins, who were assiduous in
blackening his memory, give tlie silghte.st hint of this decree. The
latter do, indeed, connect, tlio High; of Jesus into Egypt with a mur-
derous scene, the author of which, however, is not Herod but King
Janna'uM, and tlie victims not children, but rabbins. \ 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 tlie birth of Christ. Macrobius, who lived in
tlie fourth century, is tlie only author wdio notices tlie slaughter of
the infants, and lie introduces it obliquely in a passage which loses
all credit by confounding the execution of Antipater, who was so far

* llns is shown in opposition to Olshauaen liv Stenrtrl in Brnp-l's Archiv. vii. ii.
*-> f. viii, iii. 4S7.  •;- ycliinidt, lit sup, p. l.-iO." } B.iliylon. Sanhcilr. f. cvii, 2, ap.
^IR'htt'uot. u. Wl. Cniiin S,.l.,.lt,wn ii n .-i't:^ A rrnrflills.- 10 JoarllllllS Antici. xiii. xiii.

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

164

from a child tliat lie complained of his grey hairs,* with tlie murder
of the infants, renowned among the. Christians.!  Commentators
have attempted to diminish our surprise at, the remarkable silence
in question, by reminding us tliat the number of children of the
given age in the petty village of Bethlehem, must have been small,
and by remarking tliat 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 tliese observations tlie specific
atrocity of murdering innocent children, however few, is overlooked;

and it is tills that must liave prevented tlie deed, if really perpetrat-
ed, from being forgotten. § Here also the evangelist cites (v. 17,
18) a prophetic passage (Jerem. xxxi. 15), as having been fulfilled
by tlie murder of the infants ; whereas it originally referred to some-
tiling quite different, namely the transportation of the Jews to Ba-
bylon, 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 lie fixes his abode
at Nazareth in Galilee, under tlie milder government of Herod An-
tipas. (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 with-
out detriment, but with advantage; either the star or tlie vision
might from tlie beginning have deterred the magi from going to Je-
rusalem, and by this means perhaps have averted tlie massacre or-
dained by Herod. But tliat the two last visions are not united in
one is a mere superfluity; for tlie direction to Joseph to proceed to
Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, which is made the object of a spe-
cial 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 tins chap-
ter arc crowned by tlie last verse, where it is said tliat by the set-
tlement of the parents of Jesus at Nazareth was fulfilled the saying
of the prophets : lie shall be called a Jfazarene. Now this pas-
sage is not to be found in the Old Testament, and unless exposi-
tors, losing courage, take refuge in darkness by supposing tliat it is
extracted from a canonical || or apocryphal'[ book now lost, they must

* Joseph. B.j. I, xxx. 3. Comp. Antiq, xvii. iv. 1. 1- Macroh. Saturnal. ii. 4:

Quum audisset (Augustus) inter pueros, quas in Syria IIerodes rex Judmrum intra bima-
turn jussit interjici, jilium quoqiie ejus orcistim, ait; •nwlius est, Ilerodls porcum (ur) esse
min.-m. Sliuia (vibv\  t Vid. Wetstein, Kuinol, Olshausen in loc. Winer d. A. Herodea.

BIETII AND EAKLY LIFE OF JESUS.            165

admit the conditional validity of one or other of tlie following charges
against the evangelist.. If, as it has been alleged, lie intended to
compress the Old Testament prophecies tliat the Messiah would be
despised, into the oracular sentence, He shall be called a Nazarene,
i. e. the citizen of a despised city,1" we must accuse him of the most
arbitrary mode of expression; or, if lie be supposed to give a modi-
fication of '"|i''3 (nasir) we must tax him with tlie moat violent, trans-
formation of the word and the grossest perversion of its meaning,
for even if, contrary to the fact, tins epithet were applied to the
Messiah in the Old Testament, it could only mean either that lie
would be a Nazarite,f which Jesus never was, or that he would be
crowncd,{ as Joseph Gen. xlix. 26, in no case that lie would be
brought up in the petty town of Nazaretli. The most probable in-
terpretation of tills passage, and tliat wliicli lias tlie sanction of the
Jewish Christians questioned on tlie subject by Jerome, is, tliat the
evangelist here alludes to Isa. xi. 1. where tlie Mcssiali is called
•'ai "W (^surculns Jess'') as elsewhere I'l'^. § But in every case tliere
is tlie same violence done to tlie word by attaching to a mere appel-
lative of tlie Mcssiali, an entirely fictitious relation to the name of
the city of Nazaretli.

§ 35. ATTEMPTS AT A NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORY OF
THE MAGI-TRANSITION TO THE MYTHICAL EXPLANATION.

TO avoid the many difficulties wliicli beset us at every step in
interpreting this chapter after .the manner of tlie supranaturalists, it
is quite worth our wliile to seek for aiiotlier exposition wliicli may
suffice to explain the wliole according to physical and psychological
laws, without any admixture of supranaturalism.  Such an expo-
sition lias been tlie most successfully attempted by Paulus.

How could heathen magi, in a remote country of tlie east, know
any tiling of a Jewisli king about to be born ? Tills is tlie first diffi-
culty, and it is removed on tlie above system of interpretation by
supposing tliat tlie magi were expatriated Jews. But this, appar-
ently, is not tlie idea of tlie evangelist. For tlie question wliicli lie
puts into tlie mouth of tlie magi, " Where is he, that is born Kiny
of the Jews?'1'1 distinguishes them from that people, and as regards
the tendency of tlie entire narrative, tlie church seems to liave ap-
prehended it more correctly than Paulus thinks, in representing tlie
visit of tlie magi as tlie first manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles.
Nevertheless, as we have above remarked, tills difficulty may be
cleared away without having recourse to tlie supposition of Paulns.

Further, according to the natural explanation, tlie real object of
the journey of these men was not to sec the new-born king, nor was
its cause the star wliicli. tlicy liad observed in tlie cast; but tlicy

v:' Kuinol, ad Matth, p. 44 f.  f Wctstein, in loc. ^ Sc-hneekpnbcr^cr, Ueitra^e zur
Einlrituns in il;ia N. T, S, 42.  § Gitwkr, Stu.Uon und Kritiki-ii, 18;S1, a. Het't, S. iiSti f.

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

1G6

happened to be travelling to Jerusalem pcrliaps with mercantile
views, and hearing t';ir iind wide in the land of a new-Lorn king, a
celestial phenomenon which tliny liad recently observed occured to
their rcmeinLrance, and tliev earnestly desired to see tlie child in
question. By tills means, it is true, tlic difficulty arising from the
sanction given to astrology by tlie usual conception of tlic story is
diminished, but only at tlic expense of unprejudiced interpretatiol-!.
For even if it were admissible unccrimoniously to transform magi
fzayov^ into merchants, their purpose in tills journey cannot have
been a commercial one, for their first inquiry on arriving at Jerusa-
lem is after tlic new-born king, and they forthwith mention a star,
seen by them in the cast, as tlic cause not only of their question,
but also of their present journey, the object of wliicli they aver to
be the presentation of their homage to the new-born cliild. (v. 2.)

The darfip (.star) becomes, on this method of interpretation, a
natural meteor, or a. comet,* or finally, a constellation, that is, a
conjunction of plancts.f Tlic last idea was put, forth by Kepler,
and lias been approved by several astronomers and theologians. Is
it more easy, on any one of tlicac suppositions, to conceive tliat tlic
star could precede tlie magi on their way, and remain stationary over
a particular liousc, according to the representation of tlic text ? We
have already examined tlie two lirst hypotheses; if we adopt tlic
third, we must either suppose the verb -n-poayeir (v. 9) to signify llic
disjunction of tl'-c planets, previously in apparent union, ^ though
tlic text docs not imply a partition "but a forward movement of tlic
entire phenomenon ; or we must call Siiskind's pluperfect to our aid,
and imagine tliat tlic constellation, which tlic magi could no longer
sec in tlic valley between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, again burst on
their view over tlic place where tlic cliild dwelt. § For tlic 'expres-
sion, irrdvw w 'ijv -o -raiSlov (v. 9.), denotes merely tlie place of
abode, not tlie particular dwelling of the cliild and Ids parents. Tills
we grant; but when tlic evangelist proceeds thus: Kal eloe/.Ouv-Ei;

E(C -rfjv olnlav, (v. 9.) he gives tlic more general expression tlie pre-
cise meaning of dwelling-house, so tliat tills explanation is clearly a,
vain effort to abate tlie marvcllousneds of tlic evangelical narrative.

Tlie most remarkable supposition adopted by those who regard
doT'/)p as a conjunction of planets, is tliat they liad hereby obtain a
fixed point in accredited history, to wliicli tlie narrative of Matthew
may lie attached. According to Kepler's calculation, corrected by
hielcr, there occurred, three years before tlic deatli of llerod, in the
year of Home 747, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign
Places.  Tlie conjunction of tliesc planets is repeated in tlic above
sign, to wliicli astrologers attribute a special relation to Palestine,
about every SOU years, and according to tlie computation ot the
Jew Abarbanel (1.4U3) it took place three years before tlie birth of

* Ii'or lioih these explanations, sec Kuini'il, in luc.  t K"l'lcr, in varioiri treatises ;

M.'n-i^f/n- ,i,,r s^orn <lrr Wci.seti: Idrlei'. llandbueli der inathem. uud teehnisfheii Clu'ono-

167

BIETH AXD EAELY LIFE OF J::SCS.

Moses; hence it is probable enough that tlie hope of the second.

great deliverer of the nation would be associated witli tlie recurrence
of this conjunction in the time of Herod, and that when tlie pheno-
menon was actually observed, it would occasion inquiry on tlie part
of Babylonian Jews. But that the star mentioned by Matthew was
tills particular planetary conjunction, is, from our uncertainty as to
tlic year of Christ's birth, and also as to the period of the above
astrological calculation, an extremely precarious conjecture; and as,
besides, there arc certain particulars in tlic evangelical text, for
instance, the words ffpoy/yer and t'or?;, wliicli 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
tlie preference.

Tlie diflicultics connected witli the erroneous interpretations of
passages from tlie Old Testament are, from the natural point of
view, eluded by denying tliat tlic writers of tlie New Testament are
responsible for tlie falsity of these interpretations.  It is said that
tlie prophecy of Micali is applied to tlie Messiah and liis birth in
Bethlehem by tlie Sanhedrim alone, and tliat Mattlicw lias not com-
mitted himself to their interpretation by one word of approval. But
when tlie evangelist proceeds to narrate how tlic issue corresponded
witli tlic interpretation, he sanctions it by the authoritative seal of
fact. In relation to tlic passage from llosea, Paulus and Stcudcl*
concur in resorting to a singular expedient.  Mattliew, say they,
wislied to a'uard a"-ainst tlic offence which it mi^'lit possibly "'ive to

t";                   0                                                                                     0         1                  «;    0

tlie Jews of Palestine to learn tliat tlie Messiah liad once left tlic
Holy Land ; lie therefore called attention to tlie fact tliat Israel, in
one sense tlic rirst-born of Ciod, liad been called out of Egypt, for
wliicli reason, lie would imply, no one ought to be astonished tliat
tlic Messiah, tlie son of Clod in a higher sense, liad also visited a
profane land. But throughout tlie passage there is no tracef of sucli
a negative, precautionary intention on tlie part of tlic evangelist in
adducing this prophecy; on tlie contrary, all Ills quotations seem to
have tlic positive object to confirm the Messiahship of Jesus by
sliowing tliat in him tlie Old Testament prophecies liad their fulfil-
ment. It lias been attempted witli reference to tlie two other proph-
ecies cited in this chapter, to reduce tlic signification of the verb
•TAripuOtival (to hi: fulJi.Uei.l} to tliat of mere similitude or applica-
bility; but tlie futility of tlie effort needs no exposure.

Tlie various directions conveyed to tlic persons of our narrative
by means of visions arc, from tlie same point of view, all explained
psychologically, as effects of waking inquiries and reflections. Tills
appears, indeed, to lie indicated by tlie text itself, v. 22, according
to which Joseph, hearing tliat Archelaus was master of Judea, feared
to go thither, and not until then did he receive an intimation from

* Pn'ii^cFs Ar'-hiv. vii. ii. \\. 42-1'.    •i* At a later period, it is true, tins journey of
Jesus was tin.' occasion of raluiiinirs from tlir .lews, but those •were of an rntiruly different

natUl'r. ;1S \vill 1». ^.,.n ;n t!>,. <',,lL,>x-inrr *.). .1 nt-,.r

168

THE LIFE OF JESUS-

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 mo-
ments. Only a negative conclusion, that on account of Archelaus
it was not advisable to settle at Bethlehem, was attained by Joseph
wlien awake; the positive injunction to proceed to Nazareth was
superadded in his dream. To explain tlie other visions in tlie above
way is a direct interpolation of the text, for tins represents both
the hostility and death of Herod as being first made known to Jo-
seph by dreams; in like manner, the magi have no distrust of He-
rod until a dream warns them against his treachery.

Thus, on the one hand, the sense of tlie narrative in Matt. ii. is
opposed to tlie conception of its occurrence as natural: on tlie other
liand, tills narrative, taken in its original sense, carries the super-
natural into tlie extravagant, the improbable into the impossible.
We are therefore led to doubt tlie historical character of the narra-
tive, 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
tlie natural interpretation, wliicli they sought to transcend. Arabian
mercliants (thinks Krug, for example) coming by chance to Beth-
lehem, met witli tlie parents of Jesus, and learning tliat they were
strangers in distress, (according to Matthew tlie 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 tlie infanti-
cide ; tlie latter, because tlie above incident was supposed to have
had some effect on Herod, wlio, on other grounds than those alleged
in the text, liad caused some families in Bethlehem to be put to
death; tlie former, probably because Jesus liad with some unknown
object, actually visited Egypt at a later period.*

In this as in tlie purely naturalistic interpretation, there remain
as so many garb, tlie arrival of some oriental travellers, the flight
into Ea;ypt, and the massacre in Bethlehem; divested, however, of
the marvellous garb witli which they are enveloped in the evangeh-
cal narrative.  In this unadorned form, these occurrences arc held
to be intelligible and such as might very probably happen, but in
point of fact they are more incomprchcnaible even than when viewed
through tlio medium of orthodoxy, for witli their supernatural em-
bellishments vanishes the entire basis on wliicli they rest. Mat-
thew's narrative adequately accounts for tlie relations between the
men of the east and tlie parents of Jesus; this attempt at mythical
exposition reduces them to a wonderful chance. The massacre at

* L'clier formcllc oiler CrenctiEsche Erklarungcn dur Wunder.  In IIenkr's Musrura,
1, 3, 3i)i) tl'.  hiliiil.tr cs-iiivs seu in the Abhanillungeii tiber die hiiiden ersten Kapitel dea
Matthaiia und Lukas. in lienkii's Magazin, 5, 1, HI it'., and in Matthni, Keli^iunsyl. der

169

BIETH AND EAKLY LIFE OF JESUS.

Bethlehem has, in the evangelical narrative, a definite cause; here,
we are at a loss to understand how Herod came to ordain such an
enormity; so, tlie journey into Egypt wliicli liad so urgent a motive
according to Matthew, is on tins scheme of interpretation, totally
inexplicable. It may indeed be said: tliese events had their ad-
equate causes in accordance witli the regular course of tilings, but
Matthew lias withheld tills natural sequence and given a miraculous
one in its stead. But if the writer or legend be capable of environ-
ing occurrences with fictitious motives and accessory circumstances,
either the one or the other is also capable of fabricating tlie occur-
rences themselves, and this fabrication is tlie more probable, the
more clearly we can show that tlie legend had an interest in depict-
ing such occurrences, though tlicy liad never actually taken place.

Tills argument is equally valid against the attempt, lately made
from tlie supranaturalistic point of view, to separate the true from
the false in tlie evangelical narrative. In a narrative like tills, says
Ncander, we must carefully distinguish tlie kernel from tlie sliell,
the main fact from immaterial circumstances, and not demand the
same degree of certitude for all its particulars. That tlie magi by
their astrological researches were led to anticipate tlie birth of a
Saviour in Judea, and hence journeyed to Jerusalem that they might
offer him their homage, is, according to him, tlie only essential and
certain part of tlie narrative. But how, when arrived in Jerusalem,
did they learn tliat the cliild was to be bom in Bethlehem ?   From
Herod, or by some oilier means?  On this point Ncander is not
equally willing to guarantee tlie veracity of Matthew's statements,
and lie regards it as unessential. Tlie magi, lie continues, in so
inconsiderable a place as Bethlehem, might be guided to tlie cliild's
dwelling by many providential arrangements in tlie ordinary course
of events; for example, by meeting witli tlie shepherds or other de-
vout persons who liad participated in the great event. When how-
ever they liad once entered tlie house, they might represent the
circumstances in the astrological guise witli which their minds were
the most familiar.   Ncander awards to historical character to the
flight into Egypt'and the infanticide.*  By tills explanation of the
narrative, only its lieavicst difficulty, namely, tliat tlie star preceded
the magi on their way and paused above a single house, is in reality
thrown overboard; tlie other difficulties remain. But Ncander has
renounced unlimited confidence in tlie veracity of tlie evangelist, and
admitted tliat a part of his narrative is unhistorical. If it be asked
how tar tills unhistorical portion extends, and wliat is its kind-
whether tlie nucleus around which legend lias deposited its crystalli-
zations be historical or ideal,-it is easy to show tliat tlie few and.
vague data wliicli a le;s lenient criticism tlian 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 wliicli we are about
to exhibit.

170

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

§. 36. THE PURELY MYTHICAL EXPLANATION OF THE NARRATIVE
CONCERNING THE MAGI, AND OF THE EVENTS WITH WHICH IT IS
CONNECTED.

SEVERAL Fathers of tlie 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 tlic conjecture that tills knowledge
iniglit have been drawn from the prophecies of tlic heathen Balaam,
recorded in the Book of Numbers.*  K. Ch. L. Sclnuidt justly
considers it a deficiency in tlie exposition of Paulus, that it takes
no notice of tlie Jewish expectation tliat a star would become visible
at tlic appearance of tlie Messiah; and yet, he adds, tills is tlie only
thread to guide us to tlie true origin of tills narrativc.t Tlic proph-
ecy of Balaam (Num. xxlv. 17.)  A fstar shall come out of Jacob,
was tlie cause-not indeed, as the Fathers supposed, tliat magi
actually recognized a newly-kindled star as tliat of tlic Messiah, and
hence journeyed to Jerusalem,-but, tliat legend represented a star
to have appeared at tlie birth of Jesus, and to have been recognized
by astrologers as tlie star of tlic Mcssiali. Tlie prophecy attributed
to Balaam originally referred to sonic fortunate and victorious ruler
of Israel; but it seems to have early received a Messianic interpre-
tation.  Even if tlic translation in tlie Targum of Onkelos, Sl.ti'yet
rex ex Jawlio, ef ^Fessius (t.t.n<.'tm<) wiyetur ex Jsraeie, prove noth-
ing, because here the word 'unctiif, is synonymous witli reA", and nuglit
signify an ordinary king,-it is yet worthy of notice tliat, accord-
ing to the testimony of Abcn Ezra:}; and tlie passages cited by
Wetstcin and Schocttgcn, many rabbins applied tlie prophecy to
tlie Mcssiali. The name Bar-Coehcba {aon (if n still'), assumed by
a noted pseudo-Messiah under Iladran, was chosen with reference
to the Messianic interpretation of Balaam's prophecy.

It is true tliat. tlie passage in question, taken in its original
sense, docs not speak of a real star, but merely compares to a star
tlic future prince of Israel, and this is tlie interpretation given to it
in tlie Targum above quoted.  But tlie 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 tlic Messiah. We have various proofs
tliat a belief in astrology was prevalent in tlie time of Jesus.  Tlie
future greatness of Mithridatcs was thought to bo prognosticated by
tlic appearance of a comet in the year of his birth, and in tliat ot
his accession to tlic throne ;§ and a comet observed shortly alter the
dcatli of Julius Csrsar, was supposed to have a. close relation to tliat
event. || These ideas were not without influence on the .lews; at

* Orig. c. Cels. i. (;»).   AlK.'tor. op. inipcrf. in SIattli. ap, Faliridus I'seudcpigr. V,
T. p, Kl>7 it.  + Mrliinidt's Bihiiollirk, ;!, 1, S. 130.  f In loc. N11111. (Srhottgfii, liorffi,
ii. p. l.'>2): Multi •iiilvrprclu.ti suut Imc de Mvsslii.  § Justiii, Hist. 37.  || Suctoil, Jul.

BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS.           171

least we find traces of them in Jewish writings of a later period, in
which it is said tliat a remarkable star appeared at tlie birth of Abra-
ham.* When such ideas were afloat, it was easy to imagine tliat
the birth of the Messiali must be announced by a star, especially
as, according to tlic common interpretation of Balaam's prophecy, a
star was there made tlie symbol of tlie Messiah.  It is certain tliat
tlie Jcwisli mind effected tills combination; for it is a rabbinical
idea tliat at tlie time of tlic Messiah's birth, a star will appear in the-
cast and remain for a long time visible.! Tlic narrative of Mattliew
is sillied to this simpler Jewish idea; tlic apocryphal descriptions
of tlie star that announced tlie birth of Jesus, to the extravagant
fictions about tlie star said to have appeared in tlic time of Abra-
ham.:): We may therefore state tlie opinion of K. Cli. L. Schmidt,§
recently approved by Fritzsclie and De Wcttc, as the nearest ap-
proach to truth on the subject of Matthew's star in the cast.  In
tlie time of Jesus it was the general belief tliat stars were always
the forerunners of great events; hence the Jews of tliat period
thought tliat tlie birth of tlie Messiali would necessarily be an-
nounced by a star, and this supposition had a specific sanction in
Num. xxiv. 17.  Tlie carlv converted Jewish Christians could con-
firm their faith in Jesus, and justify it in tlic eyes of others, only
by labouring to prove that in him were realized all tlie attributes
lent to tlic Messiali by tlic Jewisli notions of their age-a propo-
sition tliat might be urged the more inoffensively and with tlic less
chance of refutation, tlic more remote lay tlie age of Jesus, and tlie
more completely tlic history of his cliildliood was shrouded in dark-
ness.  Hence it soon ceased to be matter of doubt that tlic antici-
pated appearcnce of a star was really coincident witli tlie birth of
Jesus. || Tills being once presupposed, it followed as a matter of
course that tlie observers of tills appearance were eastern magi; first,
because none could better interpret tlic sign than astrologers, and
the cast was supposed to be the native region of their science; and
secondly, because it must have seemed fitting tliat tlie Messianic star
which liad been seen by tlie spiritual eye of tlie ancient magus Ba-

* Jalkut Euhcni, f, xxxii, 3 (ap. Wetstein) : qua horn natus est Abrnhanws, pfiter
flosfer^ super quern sit pax^ sietii qnoddmn sidus til oricntc et d^gfufivif quattiw usfrif; qufe
era-lit •in qiuitnur call plugls. According to an Arabic writing entitled Maalleni, this star,
prognosticating the birth of Abraham, was &>'cn by Nimrod in a dro.-iiii.  Fabric. Cod.
pscudrpigr. V. T. i. 8. 34,"). T Tcstaiiicntum XIl Patriarcharuiii. trst. Levi, 18 (Fabric.
CoiL pseud, V, T. p. W-i f.) : nai uvaTdsl ua'pov avrm (of tlie Messianic lspev( Kna'if)
iv ovpa.Vt.1-^(J-^OV <)<;(• yvuoctJS- K. T. 1. I'usikta Sotarta f. xlviii. 1 (ap. Srhottgen ii. p.
B31) : hi priiillbit stclla ah ori-iilr, qua; est stclla .Ucssiie, ft in oi-iente vm'iliilur dirs XV.
Coin]). Soliar Grni-s. {. 74, Srhottgon ii. ."i24, and sonic other passagi-s which are pointed
out by Idcler ill tin; Handbuch drr C'hronologie, '-' lid. S. -t0;>. Anin, 1. and Bcrtlioldt,
Cliristologi.t .Iiida'oruni, § 14.  { Compare- with (lie passagua ciu'd Note 7.  I'rot.'vang.
Jac. <:ap. xxi.: u^ofzev ucTEpa 7ra///2£-y£i^, /.u.fnpavTa t-v role uaTpoif; -roL'nxc hal uu-3^-
vovTa QiTori- TOI) ^alveiv. Still iiioru rxaggcratrd in Ignat. rp. ad. Epiics. 19.  See the
collection of passages connected with this sniiject in Tliilo, cod. apoer. i. p. S'.IU f.

§ Exeg, lieitriigc i, S. 1,')!) ft',  || Fritzsche in the paraphrase of eliap. ii, Etiam
sirllu, quam jiidnica disciplina sub S.lessice natnte visum in ilicit, quo Jvsus iiascebatw
tempure exorlii e.st,

172

THE CIFE OF JESUS.

laam, should, on its actual appearance be first recognized by the

bodily eyes of later magi.                                    ,

Tills particular, however, as well as tlie journey of the magi
into Judca, 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, cliap. lx., tlic prophet foretels that,
at that time, the most remote people and kings will come to Jeru-
salem to worship Jeliovah, witli offerings of gold and incense and
all acceptable gifts.* If in this passage tlie messianic times alone
are spoken of, wliile the Messiah himself is wanting, in Psalm Ixxii.
we read of a king wlio is to be feared as long as tlic sun and moon
endure, in wliose times tlie righteous sliall nourish, and whom all
nations sliall call blessed; this king might, easily be regarded as the
Messiah, and tlie Psalm says of him nearly in tlie words of Isai.
lx., that foreign kings shall bring him gold and other presents. To
tills it may be added, that tlie pilgrimage of foreign people to Je-
rusalem is connected with a risen lia'ht,+ wliicli mio'ht suwest the

0     • -                           0             00

star of Balaam. What was more natural, when on tlie one hand
was presented Balaam's messianic star out of Jacob, (for the obser-
vation of which magian astrologers were tlie best adapted,) on tlic
other, a liglit wliicli was to arise on Jerusalem, and to which dis-
tant nations would come, bringing gifts,-than to combine tlie two
images and to say: In conse.quen.cc of the star which liad risen over
Jerusalem, astrologers came from a distant land witli presents for
tlic Messiah whom the star announced? But wlicn the imagination
once had possession of tlie star, and of travellers attracted by it
from a distance, there was an inducement to make tlie star the im-
mediate 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, stclla facein ducens, marked out tlie way of Aeneas from
tlie shores of Troy to tlie west; { Thrasybulus and Timoleon were
led by celestial tires ; and a star was said to have guided Abraham
on Ills way to Moriali. § Besides, in tlie prophetic passage itself,
the heavenly light seems to be associated with tlie pilgrimage of the
offerers as the guide of their course; at all events the originally
figurative language of tlie prophet would probably, at a latter peri-
od, be understood literally, in accordance with tlic rabbinical spirit
of interpretation. Tlic rnagi are not conducted by the star directly
to Betlileliem where Jesuu was; they rirst proceed to Jerusalem.
One reason for tills miglit be, tliat tlic prophetic passage connects
the risen liglit and tlie offerers with Jerusalem; but tlie chief rea-
son lies in tlie fact, tliat in Jerusalem Herod was to be found; for

* As in Matt, ii. 11, it is said of the ma^i vpoarivsynav auTo-xpvaov sac 'ki.0a.vav ;

BO in Isai. lx. G (LXX) : »/^0tii7(, fspovT'-c ^pvaipv, KCU /lip'orov oiaovai. Tile third present
is in Mattli. G^ivpva, in Isai. /^oc 77//£oc*

fv. 1. mul 3: -p-iS; iSSU "'3 (Lxx: 'kpMwiA^.) '•1-1:1^ •'-iltS l?3-ip

:^n-if nsisb ti-cbtti 'Tri^b Em:» •Gbn'i--:mT ^by mrp

BIETH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESUS.           173

what was better adapted to instigate Herod to his murderous decree,
than tlie 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 tlie primitive Christian
le°'end.  In all times legend lias glorified tlie infancy of great men
by persecutions and attempts on tlieir life ; the greater tlie danger
that hovered over them, the higher seems their value ; tlie more
unexpectedly tlieir deliverance is wrought, the more evident is the
esteem in which they are held by heaven. Hence in tlie history of
the cliildliood of Cyrus in Herodotus, of Romulus in Livy,* and
even later of Augustus in Suetonius, f we find this trait; ncitlier
has the Hebrew legend neglected to assign such a distinction to
Moses.f One point of analogy between the narrative in Exod. i.
ii., and tliat in Mattliew, is tliat in both cases the murderous de-
cree does not refer specially to tlie one dangerous cliild, but gener-
ally to a certain class of children ; in tlie former, to all new-born
males, in tlie latter to all of and under tlie age of two years. It is
true that, according to tlic narrative in .Exodus, tlie murderous
decree is determined on without any reference to Moses, of wliose
'birth Pharaoh is not supposed to liave 'had any presentiment, and
who is therefore only bv accident implicated in its consequences.
But this representation did not sufficiently mark out Moses as the
object of hostile design to satisfy tlie spirit of Hebrew tradition,
and by the time of Joscphus it had been so modified as to resemble
more nearly tlie legends concerning Cyrus and Augustus, and above
all the narrative of Matthew. According to the later legend, Pha-
raoh was incited to issue his murderous decree by a communication
from his interpreters of the sacred writings, wlio announced to liiin
the birth of an infant destined to succour tlie. Israelites and humble
the Egyptians.§ Tlie interpreters of tlie sacred writings here play
the same part as tlie interpreters of dreams in Herodotus, and the
astrologers in Matthew. Legend was not content witli thus signal-
izing tlie infancy of tlie lawgiver alone-it soon extended tlie same
distinction to tlic great progenitor of tlic Israelitish nation, Abra-
ham, whom it represented as being in peril of his life from the
murderous attempt of a. jealous tyrant, immediately after Ills birth.
Moses was opposed to Pharaoh as an enemy and oppressor; Abra-
ham lield tlie same position witli respect to Nimrod.   This mon-
arch was forewarned by his sages, whose attention had been ex-
ited by a remarkable star, tliat Tharah would liave a son from

* Herod, i. 108 ft'.  Liv. 1. 4. ^ Octav. 94 :-ante p'lucos qwim nascfrefur menses
prodiyium Romw j'actum publtce^ quo dwwiS'tahnfur, rc'gem populi liomani naiuram parfu-
Tvre.  Kenaiuin cxtemtuin, censuisse, tie quis illo anno genittis fducaretur. j-^os, qiu gravi-
das vxores haberent, quo ad se quisqye sprm tniheret, cuirasse, ne Sm.atus cmtsulluni, ad
acrarium diferrefw. t Bauer (ulier das AIythische in der fruheren Lcliensper. des iloses,
In the n. Theol. Journal 1°>, 3) liad already compared tlie marvellous deliverance of Moses
witli tliat of Cyrus and Komulus ; tlie comparison of tlie infanticides was added by De

Wette Kritil.- <"lo,. Mna n>.a,.l.i,.litB e 171;.   S Ji>ai.Tili  A lltin i i. i l. •>,

174

THE LIFE OP JESUS.

whom a powerful nation would descend. Apprehensive of rivalry,
Nimrod immediately issues a murderous command, which, however,
Abraham happily escapes.* What wonder, then, tliat, as the great
progenitor and tlic lawgiver of the nation had their Nimrod and
Pharaoh, a«.corrcsponding persecutor was found for tlic restorer of
the nation, tlie Messiah, in tlie person of Herod ;-tliat 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, liowevcr, he
happily escapes? Tlic apocryphal legend, indeed, lias introduced
an imitation of this trait after its own style, into tlic history of tlic
Fore-runner ; lie, too, is endangered by Herod's decree, a mountain
is miraculously cleft asunder to receive him and his mother, but Ills
father, refusing to point out tlie boy's hidingplace, is put to dcath.f

Jesus escapes from tlic liostile attempts of Herod by oilier means
than those by which Moses, according to the mosaic history, and
Abraham, according to tlie Jewish legend, chide tlie decree issued
against tlicm ; namely, by a flight out of Ills 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 lie liad slain tlic Egyp-
tian, wlic.n, fearing tlic vengeance of Pharaoh, lie takes refuge in
Midian (Exod. il. 15.). Tliat reference was made to tills night of
tlic first God in tliat of tlic second, our text expressly shows, for
tlie words, which it attributes to tlie angel, wlio encourages Josepli
to return out of Egypt into Palestine, are tliose by wincli Moses is
induced to return out of Midian into Egypt4 Tlie clioicc of Egypt
as a place of refuge for Jesus, may be explained in the simplest
manner: tlie young Messiah could not, like Moses, tiec out nf Egypt;

hcnec, that his history might not be destitute of so significant a feat-
ure as a connexion with Egypt, tliat ancient retreat of tlic patriarchs,
tlie relation was reversed, and lie was made to flee into Egypt, which,
besides, from its vicinity, was tlic most appropriate asylum for a
fugitive from Judea.  Tlie prophetic passage wliicli tlic evangelist
cites from llosca xi. 1.   Out of .Egypt /uive I called my sun-
is less available for tlic clucid'.ition of this particular in our narrative.
For the ini mediate proofs tliat the Jews referred tills passage to the
Messiali arc very uncertain ;§ though, if we compare such passage
as Ps. ii. 7. in which tlie words finx ''?3 {thou art 'my son') arc in-
terpreted of tlie Messiali, it cannot appear incredible tliat tlie ex-
pression "'33'? (iny sort) m Hosea was supposed to liave a messianic
signification.

* Jalkut liubcui (cont. of the passage cited in No. G) : dixerunt s'lpu-nt.rs Ximrodt ;

natus tst Tharwji.lins hue ipsii hora, ex quo egressus cst pnpuliiJ!, qil.i /Mi'eiitt ibll pra'-seas
et J'l.iturun seculum; si tibi placuerU, dvlur pniri ipsius dunnis iliymlo mow/us plena, et
oecidnt ipsum.  Comp. tlie passage of the Arabic book quoted by Fabric, Cod. pscudepigr.
ut sup.  •;' Protev. Jacob), c, xxii. f.

t Ex. iv. 1;1, LXX :                            Matt.ii.20:

puSi^c, un'ri'.ae E;(- Myvir-ov, TS'-QvTjicaal yup ..e/Ep^rir-wopcvov eic yfiv 'lafiafi^ To»i^-
wuvTCf ol fr/Tow-ircc auv ryv ^ivy/v.            naot yup Ot friTOWTt'c riiv ^iv^v TOD irai&ov.
We may n'niark that tin; in.ipropriate use of tlie plur.il in tlie evangeliral passage, can

BIETH AND EAELT LIFE OF JESUS.            175

Against this mythical derivation of the narrative, two objec-
tions have been recently urged. First, if the history of the star
originated in Balaam's prophecy, wliy, 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, sliglitcst allusion to that
prophecy ?* Because it was not he wlio -wove this history out of
the materials furnished in tlic Old Testament ; lie received it, al-
ready fashioned, from others, wlio did not communicate to him its
real origin. For tlic very reason tliat many narratives were trans-
mitted to him without their appropriate keys, he sometimes tries
false ones ; as in our narrative, in relation to tlie Bethlehem mas-
sacre, he quotes, under a total misconception of tlic passage, Jere-
miah's image of Rachel weeping for her children, f Tlie other ob-
jection is this : liow could tlie communities of Jcwisli Christians,
wlience this pretended mythus must have. sprung, ascribe so high
an importance to the heathen as is implied in tlie star of tlie magi ?^
As if tlie prophets liad not, in such passages as we have, quoted, al-
ready ascribed to them this importance, which, in fact, consists but
in their rendering homage and submission to tlic Messiali, a rela-
tion that must be allowed to correspond witli the, ideas of the Jewish
Christians, not to speak of tlie particular conditions on which the
heathen were to be admitted into tlie kingdom of the Messiali.

We must therefore abide by tlic mythical interpretation of our
narrative, and content ourselves witli gathering from it no particu-
lar tact in tlie life of Jesus, but only a new proof liow strong was
the impression of his messiahship left by Jesus on the minds of his
contemporaries, since even the history 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 tliat of Matthew.  We have seen that tlie
narrative of Matthew does not allow us to presuppose tliat of Luke
as a series of prior incidents: still less can tlie converse be true,
namely, tliat the magi arrived before tlic shepherds: it remains tlien
to be asked, whether tlie two narratives do not aim to represent the
same fact, though they have given it a different garb ? From the
older orthodox opinion tliat tlie star in Mattlicw was an angel, it
was an easy step to identify tliat apparition witli the angel in Luke,
and to suppose tliat the angels, wlio appeared to tlie shepherds of
Bethlehem on tlie night of tlic birth of Jesus, were taken by tlie
distant magi for a star vertical to Judca,|| so that. both tlie accounts
might be essentially correct. Of late, only one of the Evangelists

N. T. Gramm. s. 149.   Comp. also Exod. iv. 20 witli Matt. ii. 14, 21.  § Vide e. g.
Schottgen, hone, ii. p 209.

* Tlieile, zur Biographic ,Iesu, § l.">, Anm. 9. IIoffinann, S. 2C9.   -i- Comp my
Streitschriften, i. 1,8. 43 f. ; George, s. 39.   f Keander, L. J. Cli. s. 37.   |! Srhleier-
maclicr, (fiber den Lukas, s. 47) explains tlie narrative concerning the magi as a sym-
bolical one ; but lie scorns to take into. consideration the passages from tile 0, '1'. and
other writings, which have a bearing on the subject, and liy way of retribution, Ins ex-
position at tine time rests ill generalities, at another, takes a wrong patli.    § Lightfuot,

THE LIFE OE JESCS.

176

has been supposed, to give the true circumstances, and Luke has
had the preference, Matthew's narrative being regarded as an em-
bellished edition.

According to this opinion, the angel clothed, in heavenly bright-
ness, in Luke, became a star in the tradition recorded by Matthew,
the ideas of angels and stars being confounded in the higher Jewish
theology; tlie 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 as-
sumed, that Luke's narrative bears the stamp of historical credibil-
ity. 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 Mattliew's narrative from that of Luke, to the very
simple derivation which may bo traced, through Old Testament pas-
sages 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.

§ 37. CHRONOLOGICAL GELATION BETWEEN THE VISIT OF THE MAGI,
TOGETHER WITH THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT, AND THE PRESENTATION.
IN THE TEMPLE RECORDED BY LL'KE.

IT has been already remarked, that the narratives of Matthew
and Luke above considered at first run tolerably parallel, but after-
wards 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 tlie 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, tliat is, according to Levit. xii. 2-4, forty days after
tlie birth of tlie child (Luke ii. 22). The time of tlie other incidents
is not fixed with the same exactness ; it is merely said that the magi
came to Jerusalem, TOV 'l'r]aov ^nvvrfiiiv-roq EV VrjOXsep, (Matt. ii. 1)-
llow long after the birth tlie Evangelist does not decide. As, how-
ever, the participle connects the visit of the magi with the birth of
the child, if not immediately, at least so closely that notliing of im-
portance can be supposed to have intervened, some expositors have
been led to tlie opinion tliat the visit ought to be regarded as prior
to the presentation in the temple, f Admitting tins arrangement we

* Sdmeckenburger, fite den Uraprong des ersten kanonischen Evangcliums S. GO ff.
---r^.,-„, ;{ ^ kitnrT nmisn. acad. iii. S. 96 ff.

BIETH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESCS.           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 tliat event.  If
we adopt the latter alternative, and thrust tlie presentation in the
temple between the visit of the magi and the flight, we come into
collision at once with tlie text of Mattliew and tlie mutual relation
of the facts.  The evangelist connects tlie command to flee into
Egypt with tlie return of the magi, by a participii'.l construction
(v. 13) similar to tliat by which he connects the arrival of tlie oriental
sages with the birth of Jesus; hence those, who in tlie one instance
liold such a construction to be a reason for placing tlie events which
it associates in close succession, must in the other instance be with-
held by it from inserting a third occurrence between the visit and
tlie flight. As regards tlie mutual relation of the facts, it can hardly
be considered probable, that at the very point of time in which Jo-
seph received a divine intimation, that he was no longer safe in
Bethlehem from tlie designs of Herod lie should be permitted to
take a journey to Jerusalem, and thus to rush directly into the lion's
mouth. At all events, the strictest precautions must have been en-
joined on all wlio were privy to tlie presence of the messianic child
in Jerusalem, lest a rumour of tlie 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 cither by tlie Holy Spirit or by the parents, but
Anna also thinks she is serving tlie good cause, by publishing as
widely as possible tlie tiding's of the Messiah's birth (Luke ii, 28 ff.
38). It is true that she is said to have confined her communications
to those who were like-minded with herself (e^aAEi T-ept avov rrafft
rolf; TTpoaSe^ofievwc; Avrpuaiv ev 'lepovoa/',/)^), but this could not hinder
them from reaching the ears of the Herodian party, for the greater
tlie excitement produced by such news on the minds of those zu/w
looked for redemption, tlie more would the vigilance of the govern-
ment 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 tlie temple
after tlie visit of the magi, must also determine to postpone it until
after tlie return from Egypt. But even tills arrangement clashes
with the evangelical statement; for it requires us to insert, between
the birth of Jesus and his presentation in the temple, the following
events : the arrival of tlie magi, the flight into Egypt, tlie Bethlehem
massacre, the death of Herod, and the return of the parents of Je-
sus out of Egypt-obviously too much to be included in tlie space
of forty days. It must therefore be supposed, tliat tlie presentation
of the cliild, and the first appearance of the mother in the temple,
were procrastinated beyond tlie time appointed by the law. This
expedient, however, runs counter to tlie narrative of Luke, who ex-
pressly says, that the visit to tlie temple took place at the legal

tiirio   lini- in <nHi^r pfiGF* tlio rhrtir-nlfv iq tlio sn.mc • t.hft "n.n.rcnts of

THE LIFE OF JESU8.

180

two, must we not deny to both an historical character ? The answer
to this question will be found in the succeeding examination.

§ 38. THE PEESENTATION OF JESUS IN THE TEMPLE.

THE narrative of the presentation of Jesus in the temple (Luke
ii. 22\ seems, at the first glance, to bear a thoroughly historical

/                       •                                              o'                                                            0      */

stamp. A double law, on the one hand prescribing to tlie mother
an offering of purification, on the other, requiring tlie redemption of
tlie first-born son, leads the parents of Jesus to Jerusalem and to
the temple. Here thcv meet with a devout man, absorbed in the

expectation of tlie Messiah, named Simeon. Many expositors hold
•• •"•      • ••  ••'  ^----•^-.n,,,T?.,i,T.,.:ei;,^,^ +^n c,^ nf Tr;1-

this Simeon to be the same witli tlie Rabbi Simeon, the son of Hil-
lel, Ills successor as president of the Sanhedrim, 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, av9pwr6^ -ic, (a certain man.t) Without this
hypothesis, however, tlie scene between tlie parents of Jesus and Si-
meon, as also the part played by Anna tlie prophetess, seems to ad-
mit ot a very natural explanation. There is no necessity for sup-
posing, with the author of the Natural History,! tliat Simeon was
previously aware of tlie hope cherished by Mary tliat 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 tliat period, witli tlie hope of tlie speedy advent of tlie Messiah,
Situe^n receives, probably in a dream, the assurance tliat before his
death he will be permitted to see the expected deliverer of his na-
tion. One day, in obedience to an irresistible impulse, lie visited
the temple, and on this very day Mary brought thither her cliild,
whose beauty at once attracted his notice; on learning tlie child's
descent from David, the attention and interest of Simeon were ex-
cited to a degree that induced Mary to disclose to him tlie hopes
which were reposed on tins scion of ancient royalty, witli tlie extra-
ordinary occurrences by which they liad been called into existence.
These hopes Simeon embraced with confidence, and in enthusiastic
language gave utterance to his messianic expectations and forebod-
ings, under the conviction tliat they would be fulfilled in tills cliild.
Still less do we need the supposition of the author of tlie Natural
History with respect to Anna, namely, tliat slie was one of the
women who assisted at tlie birth of tlie infant Jesus, and was tlius
acquainted beforehand witli tlie marvels and tlie hopes tliat liad
clustered round his cradle;-she had heard tlie words of Simeon,

* Antiq. xiv. ix. 4, xv. i. 1 and x. 4.  \ The Evang. Nicodemi indeed calls him, c.
• ' '    f *'---i_- „„,! .1,^ Ti^>tn^ Ti^n /. -^viv. iiiiikcs him a priest or even high

BIKTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS.            181

and being animated by the same sentiments, she gave them her ap-
proval.               .

Simple as tins explanation appears, it is not less arbitrary than
we have already found other specimens of natural interpretation.
Tlie evangelist nowhere says, tliat the parents of Jesus had com-
municated anything concerning tlieir extraordinary hopes to Simeon,
before lie poured forth Ills inspired words; on tlie contrary, tlie point
of Ills entire narrative consists in the idea that the a^'ed saint had,
by virtue of the spirit witli which lie was filled, instantaneously dis-
cerned in Jesus tlie messianic child, and the reason why the co-oper-
ation of tlie Holy Spirit is' insisted on, is to make it evident how
Simeon was enabled, without any previous information, to recognise
in Jesus the promised cliild, and at tlie same time to foretel the
course of his destiny. Our canonical Gospel refers Simeon's recog-
nition of Jesus to a supernatural principle resident in Simeon him-
self; the Evangelium infantice arabicum refers it to something
objective in tlie appearance of Jesus*-far more in the spirit of the
original narrative than tlie natural interpretation, for it retains tlie
miraculous element. But, apart from tlie general reasons against
the credibility of miracles, tlie admission of a miracle in tills instance
is attended with a special difficulty, because no worthv object for an
extraordinary manifestation of divine power is discoverable. For,
tliat tlie above occurrence during tlie infancy of Jesus served to dis-
seminate and establish in more distant circles the persuasion of his
Messialisllip, there is no indication; we must therefore, with the
evangelist, limit tlie object of these supernatural communications to
Simeon and Anna, to wliose devout liopcs was vouchsafed the special
reward of having their eyes enlightened to discern the messianic child.
But tliat miracles should be ordained for sucli occasional and isolat-
ed objects, is not reconcileable witli just ideas of divine providence.

Thus here again we find reason to doubt tlie historical character
of tlie narrative, especially as we have found by a previous investi-
gation tliat it is annexed to narratives purely mytliical.  Simeon's
real expressions, say some commentators, were probably these:

Would that I might yet behold the newborn Messiali, even as I
now bear this cliild in my arms !-a simple wish which was trans-
formed ex eventu by tradition, into tlie positive enunciations now
read in Lukef. But this explanation is incomplete, for tlie reason
wliy such stories became current concerning Jesus, must be shown
in tlie relative position of tills portion of tlie evangelical narrative,
and in tlie interest of the primitive Christian legend. As to the
former, tins scene at tlie presentation of Jesus in tlie temple is ob-
viously parallel witli that at the circumcision of tlie Baptist, nar-
rated by tlie same evangelist; for on both occasions, at tlie inspiration

* Cap. C. Vidifque ilium Simeon sency instar cobimmG incig rej'uli/e.ntem, cum Donuwi
Maria n'fY/o, mattr fjus, ulitis snis enm yrstaret^-et cii'ctundabant eum i.t-WJvli instar vir-
Cfd't^ cd-'bi'iintes ii/um etc. Ap. Tliilo, p. 71.    ^ Thus E. P. in the treatise, on the two
first chapters of SIatth, and Luke.  in Ilcnke's Slag. ;'>. llil. ti. l(i9 f. A similar half-

182 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

of the Holy Spirit, God is praised, for the birth of a national de-
liverer, and tlie future destiny of tlie child is prophetically an-
nounced, in the one case by tlie father, in tlie oilier by a devout
stranger. Tliat tills scene is in the former instance connected with
tlie circumcision, in tlie latter with tlie presentation in tlie temple,
seems to be accidental; when however tlie legend liad once, in re-
lation to Jesus, so profusely adorned tlie presentation in the temple,
the circumcision must be left, as we have above found it, witliout
embellishment.

As to tlie 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 wlio, as a man, so clearly proved himself to be tlie
Messiah, must also, it was thought, even as a cliild liave been re-
cognisable in his true character to an eye rendered acute by tlie
Holy Spirit; lie wlio at a later period, by Ills powerful words and
deeds, manifested himself to be tlie Son of God, must surely, even
before lie could speak or move witli freedom, liave borne tlie stamp
of divinity. Moreover if men, moved by tlie Spirit of God, so early
pressed Jesus with love and reverence in their arms, then was tlie
spirit tliat animated him not an impious one, as his enemies alleged;

and if a lioly seer liad predicted, along witli the liigli destiny of
Jesus, the conflict which lie liad to undergo, and tlie anguish which
Ills fate would cause his mother,* then it was assuredly no chance,
but a divine plan, that led him into tlie dcplits of abasement on the
way to Ins ultimate exaltation.

Tills view of the narrative is tlius countenanced positively by
the nature of the fact,-and negatively by the difficulties attending
any other explanation. One cannot but wonder, therefore, how
Schlciermachcr can be influenced against it by an observation which
did not prevent him from taking a similar view of the history of tlie.
Baptist's birth, namely, that tlie narrative is too natural to liave
been fabricated ;f and how Ncander can argue against it, from ex-
aggerated ideas of tlie more imposing traits wliicli the mytlius would
liave substituted for our narrative. Far from allowing a purinca-
tion for tlie mother of Jesus, and a redemption for himself, to take
place in tlie ordinary manner, Neander thinks the inythus would
have depicted an angelic appearance, intended to deter Mary or tlie
priest from an observance inconsistent with the dignity of Jesus.:):

As though even tlie Christianity of Paul did not maintain that Christ
was born under the law, •yew^ez'oc VTT'O vopov (Gal. iv. 4.); how much
more then tlie Judaic Christianity whence these narratives arc de-
rived ! As tliougli Jesus himself liad not, agreeably to this view of
his position, submitted to baptism, and according to tlie Evangelist

* With tlie words of Simeon addressed to Mary : KCU aov (if aDT7/f rf/v ij'v^v Sie-
^evaeTai po/Kfiaia (V. 3'i.) comii, tlie words in the messianic psalm of sorrow, x-\ii. 21 ;

fivaal ii-no /Mediae rr/v ipv^rJV fiov.   f yehleicnnaelier, iilier den l.ukas, s. 37. Compare
(in the other linnd tlie oliservations in § 18, with those of the. authors there quoted,
w,^,> ui    + x'.,ninL.r lirrii (^ 04- f'.^ mistal-Les the auoervphal for tlie mythical, as lie

183

BIRTH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESUS.

whose narrative is in question, without any previous expostulation
on the part of tlie Baptist! Of more weight is Schleicrmacher's
other observation, tliat supposing this narrative to be merely a po-
etical creation, its author w^ould scarcely have placed by tlie side of
Simeon Anna, of whom lie 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 tlie child Jesus as being proclaimed by tlie mouth of
two witnesses, and especially to associate a prophetess with the
prophet.-this is just the symmetrical grouping tliat tlie legend loves.
Tlie detailed description of Anna may have been taken from a real
person who, at tlie time when our narrative originated, was yet lield
in remembrance for her distinguished piety. As to tlie 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 tliat of Si-
meon is to welcome Jesus into tlie temple: hence as tlie part of the
prophetess was to be performed behind the scenes, her precise words
could not be given. As in a former instance Schleiermacher sup-
poses tlie Evangelist to liave received his history from the lips of
the shepherds, so here he conceives him to have been indebted to
Anna, of whose person lie has so vivid a recollection ; Ncander ap-
proves tills opinion-not the only straw thrown out by Schleier-
macher, to which this theologian lias clung in tlie emergencies of
modern criticism.

At tills point also, where Luke's narrative leaves Jesus for a
series of years, there is a concluding sentence on tlie prosperous
growth of tlie child (v. 40); a similar sentence occurs at tlie corre-
sponding period in the life of tlie Baptist, and botli recall tlie ana-
logous form of expression found in tlie liistory of Sampson (Judg.
xiii. 24 f.).

§. 39. RETROSPECT--DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND LUKE
AS TO THE ORIGINAL RESIDENCE OF THE PARENTS OP JESUS.

IN the foregoing examinations we have called in question the
historical credibility of the Gospel narratives concerning tlie geneal-
ogy, birth, and childhood of Jesus, on two grounds : first, because
tlie narratives taken separately contain much tliat will not bear an
historical interpretation ; and secondly, because the parallel narra-
tives of Matthew and Luke exclude each other, so that it is impos-
sible for botli to be true, and one must necessarily be false; this
imputation however may attach to eitlier, and consequently to both.
One of the contradictions between the two narratives extends from
tlie commencement of the liistory of the childhood to the point we
helve now readied; it lias therefore often come in our way, but we
liave been unable hitherto to give it our consideration, because only
now tliat we have completely reviewed tlie scenes in which it figures,

184

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

consequences. We refer to the divergency tliat exists between
Matthew and Luke, in relation to the original dwelling-place of the
parents of Jesus.

Luke, from tlie very beginning of his history, gives Nazareth
as the abode of Josepli and Mary; here the angel seeks Mary (i. 26);

here wo must suppose Mary's liouse omoc;, to be situated (i. 56);

from hence the parents of Jesus journey to Bethlehem on account
of tlie census (ii. 4); and liitlier, when circumstances permit, they
return as to their own city TTO/U? av-S>v (v. 39). Thus in Luke, Na-
zareth is evidently the proper residence of tlie parents of Jesus, and
they only visit Bethlehem for a short time, owing to a casual cir-
cumstance.

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: thither, it appears as if Matthew supposed them to have
been originally resident in Bethlehem. Here lie makes the parents
with tlie cliild receive tlie visit of tlie magi; then follows tlie flight
into Egypt, on returning from -which Joseph is only deterred from
again seeking Judca by a special divine admonition, which directs
him to Nazareth in Gralilee (ii. 22).  This last particular renders
certain wliat had before seemed probable, namely, tliat Matthew did
not with Luke suppose Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been
the original dwelling-place of tlie parents of Jesus, and that he con-
ceived their final settlement at Nazareth to have been the result of
unforeseen circumstances.

Tills contradiction is generally glided over without suspicion.
The reason of this lies in tlie peculiar character of Mattliew's Gos-
pel, a character on which a modern writer lias built tlie assertion
that this Evana'elist does not contradict Luke concerning tlio orlgi-

0                                                                                                                 00

nal residence of tlie parents of Jesus, for lie says nothing at all on
the subject, troubling himself as little about topographical as chron-
ological accuracy,   lie mentions tlie 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 lias left it entirely unnoticed, an omission
which however, in his style of narration, is no proof tliat lie was
ignorant of their abode, or tliat lie supposed it to have been Bethle-
hem.* But even admitting tliat the silence of Matthew on tlie ear-
lier residence of the parents of Jesus in Nazareth, and on the pecu-
liar circumstances tliat caused Bethlehem to be his birth-place, proves
nothing; yet tlie above supposition requires tliat tlie exchange of
Bethlehem for Nazareth should be so represented as to give some
intimation, or at least to leave a possibility, tliat we should under-
stand tlie former to be a merely temporary abode, and the journey
to the latter a return homeward.  Such an intimation would liave

BIETH AND EARLY LIFE OF JEgUS.           185

Taee^n given, had Matthew attributed to the angelic vision, that de-
termined Joseph's settlement in Nazareth after his return from
Egypt, such communications as tlie following: Return now into the
land of Israel and into your native city Nazaretli, for there is no
further need of your presence in Bethlehem, since tlie prophecy that
your messianic cliild should be born in tliat place is already fulfil-
led.  But as Mattlicw is alleged to be generally indifferent about
localities, we will be moderate, and demand no positive intimation
from him, but simply make tlie negative requisition, tliat lie should
not absolutely exclude tlie 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
Nazaretli as a residence, it liad been merely said tliat the parents of
Jesus returned by divine direction into the land of Israel and betook
themselves to Nazareth.  It would certainlv seem abrupt enough,
if without any preamble Nazaretli were all at once named instead
of Bethlehem : of tills our narrator was conscious, and for this rea-
son lie lias detailed the causes that led to' the change (ii. 22). But
instead of doing this, as we have shown tliat he must have done it,
had he, witli Luke, known Nazaretli to be tlie original dwelling-
place of tlie parents of Jesus, his .account has precisely tlie opposite
bearing, which undeniably proves tliat his supposition was the re-
verse of Luke's. Eor when Mattliew represents Josepli on his re-
turn from Egypt as being prevented from going to Judea solely by
his fear of Archclaus, lie ascribes to him an inclination to proceed to
that province--an inclination wliicli is unaccountable if tlie affair of
the census alone liad taken him to Bethlehem, and wliicli is only to
be explained by tlie supposition tliat he liad formerly dwelt there.
On tlie other hand as Mattliew makes tlie danger from Archelaus
(together with tlie fulfilment of a prophecy) tlie sole cause of the
settlement of Josepli and Mary at Nazaretli, lie cannot have sup-
posed tliat tins was their original home, for in tliat case there would
have been an independently decisive cause wliicli would have ren-
dered any other superfluous.

Thus tlie difficulty of reconciling Mattliew with Luke, in the
present instance, turns upon tlie impossibility of conceiving how
the parents of Jesus could, on their return from Egypt, liave it in
contemplation to proceed a second time to Bethlehem unless this
place liad formerly been their home.  The efforts of commentators
have accordingly been chiefly applied to tlie task of finding other
reasons for tlie existence of such an inclination in Josepli and Mary.
Such efforts arc of a very early date. Justin Martyr, holding by
Luke, who, while lie decidedly states Nazareth to be, tlie dwelling-
place of tlie parents of Jesus, yet does not represent Joseph as a
complete stranger in Bethlehem, (for he makes it tlie place from
wliicli lie lineally sprang,) seems to suppose tliat Nazaretli was the
dwelling-place, and Bethlehem tlie birth-place of Josepli,* and Cred-

186

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

ner thinks that this passage of Justin points out tlie 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 Joscpli had
chosen as his home, no reason appears why, on his return from
Egypt, he sliould 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 wliicli, 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 evangelical ac-
counts is still less credible ; for how could the narrative of Matthew,
which mentions neitlier Nazareth as a dwelling-place, nor tlic census
as tlie cause of a journey to Bethlehem, originate in tlie statement
of Justin, to which tliese 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 tlie
latter is not tlie parent and the two former its offspring, but vice
versa. Moreover, in this department of attempting reconciliations,
we liave already, in connexion with the genealogies, learned to esti-
mate Justin or his authorities.

A more thorough attempt at reconciliation is made in tlie Evan-
gelium de nutivitate Marice, and lias met with much approval from
modern theologians. According to tills apocryphal book, tlie house
of Mary's parents was at Nazareth, and although slie was brought
up in tlie temple at Jerusalem and there espoused to Joscpli, she
returned after this occurence to lier parents in Gahlee. Joscpli, on
the contrary, was not only born at Bethlehem, as Justin seems to
intimate, but also lived there, and thither brought home his be-
trothed.f But this mode of conciliation, unlike the other, is fa-
vourable to Mattlicw and disadvantageous to Luke. For the census
with its attendant circumstances is left out, and necessarily so, ^be-
cause if Josepli were at home in Bethlehem, and only went to Naz-
areth to fetch Ills bride, tlie census could not be represented as the
reason wliy lie returned to Bethlehem, for lie would have done so
in tlie ordinary course of tilings, after a few days' absence.^ Above
all, had Bethlehem been his home, lie would not on his arrival liave
souglit an inn where tlicre was no room for him, but would liave
taken Mary under Ills own roof. Hence modern expositors who
wisli to avail themselves of tlic outlet presented by the apocryphal
book, and yet to save tlie census of Luke from rejection, main-
tain that Joseph did indeed dwell, and carry on Ills trade, in BcA-

vhrnre he. was, to be enrolled, uvs^.v-Sei (-loc^) UTTO Na?aptr, h-Sawel, el: Bni^y,
oQev TIV, d7roypai/xroi?at. The words o9i:v TIV mi^ht however be understood as si;?iiit^"i,
mei-civ the place of Ills trite, especially if .lustin's addition be considered : tor his race
mis nflhf tribe of .fud,,h, vhi.'k i^fitit. thai hml, UTO yup TV KaTOWovaw TT]V fyv eauw-iv
^,„•.:.J•1..i.A„ ^ ,;.„„,- {„,   * 11,., i,w zur Einlrit. in das N. T. 1. S. 217. Cump. Hoft-

187

BIETH AND EAELY LIFE OP JESUS.

lehem, but that he possessed no house of his own in tliat place, and
the census recalling him thither sooner than he had anticipated, he
had not yet provided one.* But Luke makes it appear, not only
tliat the parents of Jesus were not yet settled in Bethlehem, but
(hat they were not even desirous of settling there ; tliat, on tlie con-
trary, it was their intention to depart after tlie shortest possible
stay.  This opinion supposes great proverty on the part of Joseph
and Mary; Olshauscn, on tlie other hand, prefers enriching them,
for tlie sake of conciliating tlic difference in question. He supposes
that they liad property both in Bethlehem and Nazareth, and could
therefore liave settled in either place, but unknown circumstances
inclined them, on their return from Egypt, to fix upon Bethlehem,
until tlie divine warning came as a preventive. Thus Olshausen
declines particularizing the reason wliy it appeared desirable to tlie
parents of Jesus to settle in Bethlehem; but lleydenreich and others
have supplied his omission, by assuming tliat it must liave seemed
to them most fitting for him, who was pre-eminently tlie 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,f and to confess with him that of this inten-
tion on tlie part of Joseph and Mary to settle at Bethlehem, and of
tlie motives which induced them to give up tlie plan, Luke knows
nothing, and tliat they rest on tlie authority of Matthew alone. But
what reason docs Mattliew present for this alleged change of place ?
The visit of the magi, tlie massacre of tlie infants, visions in
dreams-events whose evidently unhistorical character quite dis-
qualifies them from serving as proofs of a change of residence on
the part of tlie parents of Jesus. On the other hand Neander, while
confessing tliat tlie author of tlie first Gospel was probably ignorant
of the particular circumstances wliicli, according to Luke, led to the
journey to Bethlehem, and hence took Bethlehem to be tlie original
residence of tlie parents of Jesus, maintains that there may be an
essential agreement between tlie two accounts though tliat agree-
ment did not exist in the consciousness of tlie writers, f But, once
more, wliat 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 conse-
quences for tliat of Matthew. Hence here again it is not possible
by admitting tlie inacquaintance of tlie one narrator with what the
other presents to vindicate the statements of both; since each has
against him, not only tlie ignorance of tlie other, Liu. the improba- .
bihty of Ills own narrative.

But we must distinguish more exactly tlie respective aspects and
elements of tlie two accounts. As, according to tlie above obser-
vations, tlic change of residence on the part of the parents of Jesus,
is in Mattliew so linked witli the unhistorical data of tlie infanticide

* p-i.ii,

TTon/n, T

188

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

and the flight into Egypt, that. without tlicse 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 anotlier place than where his parents dwelt, is made to de-
pend on an event as unhistorical as the marvels of Matthew, namely
i the census. If this be surrendered, no motive remains tliat could in-
duce tlie parents of Jesus to take a formidable journey at so critical
a period for Mary, and in this view of tlie case Matthew's represen-
tation seems tlie 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 tlie negative result, that tlie evangelical state-
ments, according to which tlie parents of Jesus lived at first in an-
other place than that in which they subsequently settled, and Jesus
was born elsewhere than in tlie home of his parents, are destitute
of any guarantee ; we have yet to seek for a positive conclusion by
inquiring wliat was really tlie place of his birth.

On tills point we are drawn in two opposite directions. In both
Gospels we find Bethlehem stated to be tlie 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 tlie ulti-
mate dwelling-place of Joscpli and Ills family, and it is only an un-
supported 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 tlie 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 tlie pas-
sages immediately under consideration, in the 2nd chapters of Mat-
thew and Luke ;-it rests on an uninterrupted scries of data drawn
from tlie Gospels and from tlie earliest church history. Tlie Gali-
lean, tlie Nazarene-were the epiplicts constantly applied to Jesus.
As Jesus of Nazareth he was introduced by Philip to Natlianiel,
wliosc responsive question was, Can any good tiling come out of Na-
zareth ? Nazareth is described, not only as the place whore he was •
brought, up, ov ^v TeOpa^Kvoc; (Luke iv. 16 f.), but also as Ills coun-
try, Tra-pic (Matt. xii. 34, Mark vi. 1.). He was known among the
populace as Jesus of Nazareth (Luke xvili. 37.), and invoked under
tills name by the demons (Mark i. 24.). The inscription on tlie
. cross stvles him a Nazarene (John xix. 19.), and after his resurrec-
tion Ills 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 Nazarencs, and it was not until a late
period tliat this name was exclusively applied to a heretical sect.*
Tills a-Ducllation proves, if not tliat Jesus was born in Nazareth, at

189

BTETH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS.

least that he resided in that place for a considerable time; and as,
according to a probable tradition (Luke iv. 16 f. parall.), Jesus, dur-
ing his public life, paid but transient visits to Nazareth, this prolong-
ed 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 hia childhood; and if
it be admitted that they once dwelt there, it follows that they dwelt
there always, for we liave no historical grounds for supposing a
change of residence : so that this one of the two contradictory pro-
positions lias as much certainty as we can expect, in a fact belong-
ing to so remote and obscure a period.

Neither does the other proposition, however, that Jesus was bom
in Bethlehem, rest solely on tlie statement of our Gospels ; it is sanc-
tioned 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 tlie accomplishment of a long-expected
event, a strong suspicion must arise, tliat the narrative owes its ori-
gin solely to the pre-cxistent belief that that event would be accom-
plished. But our suspicion is converted into certainty when we find
this belief to be groundless; and this is tlie case here, for the al-
leged 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, wliich 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 tlie New Testament is the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem mentioned;

nowhere does lie 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 un-
worthy Nazareth; nowhere does he appeal to the fact as a concomi-
tant proof of liis messiahship, although he had the most direct induce-
ments to do so, for many were repelled from him by his Galilean ori-
gin, and defended their prejudice by referring to the necessity that
tlie Messiali 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 tlie presence of Jesus ;f but as, immediatly before, he had
annexed to a discourse of Jesus a comment of liis own, to the effect
that tlie Holy Ghost was not yet given, so liere he might very suit-
ably have added, in explanation of the doubts expressed by the
people, tliat tlicy did not yet know that Jesus was born in Bethle-
hem. 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

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

190

was a native of Nazaretli, and the consequent prejudice against him;

had he then known otherwise, he. must have added a corrective re-
mark, if lie wished to avoid leaving the false impression, that lie also
believed Jesus to be a Nazarene. As it is, we find Nathanael, John
i. 46, alleging this objection, witliout liaving his opinion rectified ei-
ther mediately or immediately, for he nowhere learns that tlie good
thing did not really come out of Nazareth, and the conclusion he is
left to draw is, that even out of Nazaretli something good can come.
In general, if Jesus were really born in Bethlehem, though but for-
tuitously, (according to Luke's representation,) it is incomprehen-
sible, considering the importance of this fact to the article of his mea-
siahship, that even his own adherents should always call him the Na-
zarene, instead of opposing to this epithet, pronounced by his oppo-
nents witli polemical emphasis, the honourable title of the Bethle-

hemite.

Thus the evangelical statement that Jesus was bom at Bethle-
hem is destitute of all valid historical evidence; nay, it is contra-
vened by positive historical facts.   We have seen reason to con-
clude 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 tliat, no credible testimony to the contrary exist-
ing, Jesus was probably not born at any other place than tlie 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 -w&s born, not in Beth-
lehem, but, as we have no trustworthy indications that point else-
where, in all probability at Nazareth.

The relative position of the tv^o 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, tlie birth of Jesus, wliile Matthew has only half tlie truth,
namely, that they were establislied 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 lie 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
'NTa^nrp.ne. and tlie prophetic requisition that, aa

191

FIEST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE.

which he followed, influenced by the ruling tendency to apply the
prophecies, observable in his Gospel, effected tlie desired reconcilia-
tion in such a manner, that tlie greatest prominence was given to
Bethlehem, the locality pointed out by the prophet; this was re-
presented as tlie original home of the parents of Jesus, and Naza-
reth 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 dwelling-
place of tlie parents of Jesus, and regarding the sojourn in Beth-
lehem as a temporary one, the consequence of a casual occurrence.

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