it is introduced as cited by the evangelist himself; but as it occurs in Matthew and Luke, it should agree with the Septuagint, because in those gospels it occurs as the quotation by our Lord. Now it is a fact that verbal resemblance is found between passages in the more modern manuscripts of the gospels, where, in the more ancient examples, the verbal resemblance is wanting, showing that verbal resemblance, in some instances, is to be accounted for by a tampering with the text, in order to produce uniformity. Now, in no case would such a tampering be more likely than in the one where the same passage from the Old Testament was quoted differently by different evangelists. I do not say positively that this was the case here, but it does not appear an improbable conjecture that the present reading may have been formed from the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and perhaps Luke i. 76.

Matthew xxii. 37, is the next exception. Our Lord's answer to the lawyer at Jerusalem, we might expect to have been taken from the Hebrew Scriptures.

MATTHEW Xxvii. 46.

This exception is a great confirmation of the theory. When our Lord spoke in Hebrew, the quotation differed from the Septuagint, which leads us to infer that, when the quotation does agree with the Septuagint, and not with the Hebrew, he used the Greek version."

LUKE Xxii. 37.

Our Lord was not in controversy with enemies who might cavil at his words; but discoursing with his disciples, and the sense being the same, he may have rendered from the Hebrew, as probably as quoted from the Septuagint.

The only objection which I can anticipate to the theory, taken as a whole-I speak not of exceptions to the detail-is the opinion that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic. This paper has already been extended to such a length, that I can only refer to Dr. Davidson for the arguments in favour of such a supposition, and to a long and able note of Moses Stuart, in Fosdick's edition of Hug, against it. I think I may be permitted to add, that if the arguments on either side were at all equally balanced before, the powerful internal evidence against an Aramaic original which this theory supplies, may be sufficient to es

The bystanders, from their remark, "This man calleth for Elias," must have supposed that our Lord was speaking Greek. We can hardly suppose that their ears were familiar with the Aramaic or Hebrew, and those who said, "Let be, let us see whether Elias will come," were probably speaking Greek.

tablish the blessed fact, that not only is the present Greek text of Matthew the original of that Apostle, but that in many of the discourses we have the identical words of our Lord himself. An original Aramaic gospel would have recorded events-of which there must have been many-connected with our Lord's discourses in that language, and therefore in the locality of Judea rather than of Galilee.

THE VISIT OF THE MAGI; THE TIME AND PLACE OF ITS OCCURRENCE.

THE events in the narrative of our Saviour's infancy and childhood form the exquisitely beautiful and appropriate introduction to the records of his ministry. Matthew and Luke have given us that most interesting introduction;-Luke fixing our attention on the earliest historical incidents; marking the relationship that existed between Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist; speaking more of Mary and her experiences, than of Joseph and his; telling of the visit of the shepherds to the new-born babe; of the circumcision; the presentation in the temple and the attendant circumstances; and lastly, of the return of the family "to their own city, Nazareth," (to all appearance) immediately after "they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord :" while Matthew, after briefly alluding to Joseph's conduct towards Mary, and to the calling of the child by the name "Jesus," proceeds to speak of Herod the king, and his fears, as roused by the visit of the Magi; of his cunning and cruelty; of the divine warnings given to Joseph on various occasions; of the secret return of the Magi to the East; of Joseph's secret departure to Egypt; and of his return on the death of Herod.

For the view of the order of some of those events, which we intend shortly to put before the readers of the Journal of Sacred Literature, we shall require that sympathy, and impartiality, without which, no attempt to give a new explication of a difficult chronological problem can be fairly and justly valued.

The demand we have to make on the patient consideration of the biblical critic may be all the more willingly complied with, when we affirm that, while our views are opposed to an

a See last paragraph of this article.

inference that has generally been drawn from the words of Scripture, they yet agree with the words of Scripture themselves, and reconcile those portions of the history of our Lord's infancy, in Luke and Matthew, which, hitherto, have been regarded as almost irreconcileable.

In reading Luke's narrative, we propose to read continuously on to the thirty-ninth verse of the second chapter of Luke's gospel, and immediately after that, to take in the second chapter of Matthew. This will shew, at once, how valuable such chronological order would be, if it could be legitimately obtained.

To consider, then, Matthew's precise statements:

We object, in the first place, to the phraseology by which Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλεέμ, etc., has been translated. The indefinite time of the aorist would be more precisely marked by rendering "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king." The ordinary translation in our English version, though not a mistranslation, yet insensibly leads the mind to regard what follows as following immediately after the birth of Jesus; and not as succeeding that event at a more distant and less definite period. But we merely require the admission that the phrases in the original Greek of Matt. ii. 1, would be equally applicable, where they occur, whether the visit of the Magi took place a month or two, or many months, after the birth of Christ.

Having made this allusion to Bethlehem, as the birth-place of Jesus, Matthew does not again mention Bethlehem in connexion with Jesus, or with Mary, or Joseph.

The Magi he describes as coming from the East to Jerusalem. Now, Chaldæa, Assyria, Persia, India, are the East, as far as Jerusalem is concerned. The part of Arabia that could be included under the same head is small, indeed. That they came from a very great distance is probable. And it is apparent that they saw the star for the first time, long before they began to make inquiries at Jerusalem. Indeed, whether the light that shone over and around the shepherds, on the very night of Christ's birth, was related to the sign the Magi saw, or whether a planetary or stellar phenomenon fixed their gaze; there are various reasons for supposing that the date at which they first beheld the sign, or the date at which it was most conspicuous, was the date of the Saviour's birth. This date it was that Herod, with considerable anxiety, secretly ascertained from the Magi. The use he made of it is too well known.

The position of the Magi at Jerusalem was very peculiar. They did not come in fear of an enemy, or seeking the protection of a powerful prince; the allegiance they offered was frankly

and disinterestedly offered; and out of deference to some higher idea, than the kingdoms they had known or passed through could afford them. It was not Herod's power they revered. In their earnest search, they forgot Herod and the citizens of Jerusalem. They wondered that no one could tell them of him whom they sought. "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" was their question; "for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him." The Magi were not derided by any in Jerusalem. Their presence there, with their attendants (if we are to suppose that they were men of great influence in their own land, and wealthy men, as their gifts might lead us to infer), and the embassy on which they had come, awakened the fears of Herod regarding the security of himself and family, and the anxiety of the citizens, as to their safety in any approaching struggle. Either the wisdom, or the influential position of the Magi, made Herod and his people at once believe them to be sincere, and aid them in their search. It was a strange question to put publicly, "in the days of Herod the king" "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" And the readiness with which Herod aided the search; the heed he gave to the words of the prophet Micah; and the injunction he gave to the Magi, to search diligently for the young child, and when they had found him to bring back word, that he even Herod, the king-might himself come and do homage also, are all to be accounted for by the desire of Herod to quench, at the earliest possible period, and as effectually as possible, the Star of Hope that had arisen on Israel.

In the assembly of the priests and laic scribes, "Bethlehem of Judæa" is the answer that is given to the inquiries of Herod regarding the place of the Messiah's birth.

In Herod's careful and cruelly interested injunctions to the Magi, Bethlehem is the place mentioned.

In the direction of Bethlehem we are warranted in supposing that the Magi set out at first; and whether they reached it, or were led in another direction by the re-appearance of the star; or after searching Bethlehem in vain, then turned their faces in a new direction,' and were at length gladdened by the rays of the well-known sign which first prompted their journey; this, at least, is certain;-the word Bethlehem is not again mentioned, either directly or indirectly. Herod thought they went to Bethlehem. They meant to go to Bethlehem; and they may have gone thither. But it is merely said that the Magi departed;

For there was another Bethlehem, in the tribe of Zebulun, and near the sea of Galilee.

that the star was their ultimate guide (and not Herod's directions); that it preceded them in their search, and came and stood over the place where the young child was; that they went into the house (or home of the family), and, after paying their homage to the young child, and presenting to him gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh, departed into their own country, by another way from what they intended to take; thus avoiding Jerusalem, in obedience to the divine warning they had received.

Joseph, after their departure, is warned to escape from the wrath of Herod; and the flight into Egypt follows. It is to be observed that Bethlehem is not named from the time that Herod is represented as using the word. It may be said that the reason why it is not named is that it is understood. Well, that is an inference. But suppose that Bethlehem was not the "place in which the young child was," is there in Matthew anything contradictory to such a supposition? We believe there is nothing, except the inference to which we have already alluded. Again, it may be asked why Matthew did not name the place, if it really was not Bethlehem. There may have been reasons for its omission. It may have been well known. Matthew's narrative does not even mention Nazareth, when describing the conduct of Joseph towards Mary after her betrothal. We have no more right to expect that he should name the scene of the homage of the Magi, than we have to expect that he should name the scene of Mary's betrothal and of her husband Joseph's dream. We may be inclined rather to say that it was at Bethlehem than at any other place, that the Magi saw Jesus; but there is not, in Matthew, any word that contradicts the fact of its being at another place, if that should be the fact; and especially if that fact was generally known when Matthew wrote his gospel (as some say, eight years after the ascension; some, fifteen years; some, later). The same reason that led him to omit Nazareth in the first chapter, when speaking of what occurred there, may have led him to omit naming it, when speaking of the homage paid by the Magi, if Nazareth also was the scene of that event.

It certainly was natural to expect that the reputed "King of the Jews" would be found by the Magi in the place where he had been born. We know some reasons, however, why, after the lapse of a certain period, Nazareth was a more likely place in which to find him than even Bethlehem; for, not only does Luke say that the family returned to Nazareth after they had performed the sacred rites required of them at Jerusalem; but we have the best evidence that they had no relationship or other similar reason to keep them at Bethlehem, after Mary was able

VOL. V.-NO. IX.

H