"Jesus seeing their faith." The omission by Matthew of such an incident, whilst noticing the faith of the bearers, would be remarkable. No. 1. ii. 5-22. The framework of the narrative agrees closely with Matthew but ver. 13, 23, seem to shew that Mark had : heard of these events in a different order from Matthew. 4 or 6. In the story of the ears of corn, Mark adds, "In the days of Abiathar the high priest." Ver. 27, 28, also do not arise out of Matthew's account. The variations seem greater than would have been made by one merely paraphrasing Matthew. 1,5. In the cure of the withered hand, the whole of Mark's account either agrees with or might have been suggested by Matthew's. He omits the comparison to the sheep in the pit, but enlarges in the other part. The wording of the cure, ver. 5, could not have agreed so closely from accident. 1,5. iii. 6. Mark adds, "with the Herodians." He might have known from Matt. xxii. 16, that they were leagued with the Pharisees against Jesus. Mark here, as is common for one writer using another, falls continually into Matthew's turn of narration and expressions. Εξελθοντες is a trifing particular; κατ' αυτου is unnecessary to the sense; όπως αυτον απολέσωσι, “how they might destroy him," is one out of an immense variety of phrases which might have been employed in so copious a language as the Greek: the same may be said of ovμCouλov; yet all these expressions are in both. 2. Matthew's construction is the harder in this verse. 5. iii. 7, 8. An exaggeration on Matt. xii. 15. How could Mark have known so precisely from what provinces the multitudes came? Matthew merely gives an obvious fact, that multitudes followed him. 6. iii. 21. This is not suggested by any expression in Matthew, nor is it likely that Mark would have imagined a speech apparently so derogatory to Jesus. 7. iii. 27, 28. Here the part omitted by Mark is the most unin telligible verse in Matthew's narrative, xii. 30. It is very improbable that any one, borrowing from Mark, could have inserted this verse. Сс PAGE 229. From other sources besides Matthew, it appears to have been a current notion amongst the Jews that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem. The Targum on Micah v. 1, reads, "From thee shall go forth before me Messias, to rule over Israel." The same text is cited in Pirke R. Eliezer, as relating to the Messiah. In the Mishna, Berachoth, 5, 1, there is a story about the birth of the Messiah, who is said to be Menahem, son of Hezekiah, born at Bethlehem.-See Schoettgenius and Lightfoot. If Jesus were really born at Bethlehem, the coincidence would be at least remarkable. But this fact rests only on the two accounts of Matthew and Luke, against which there are some strong objections. In Matthew the birth at Bethlehem is part of the same story which contains the slaughter of the infants, the appearance of the star, and other most improbable circumstances. Moreover, he does not explain the occasion of Joseph's being so far from his usual dwelling-place, Nazareth. Luke says that Joseph came up to Bethlehem to be taxed. Now, Josephus says that Cyrenius came into Judea "to take an account of the people's substance or estates," and he calls this a taxation; but he gives no intimation that the Jews were all required to go into their own cities. Such a wanton disturbance of the nation was very unlikely to be insisted on, when the purpose might be answered as well by a declaration given to the Roman officer. Besides, if we admit the truth of Luke's subsequent statement, that Jesus was about thirty years old in the 15th year of Tiberius, he could not be born at the time of the taxing, but was then about eight years old; for, according to Josephus, the taxings were made 37 years after the battle of Actium, from which date it is agreed that Augustus reigned 44 years. Count, therefore, 30 years from the 15th of his successor Tiberius, and we find that Jesus must have been born 8 years before the taxing. We e can calculate the same thing another way. Herod died A.U.C. 750, or 751. Archelaus held the government ten years, according to Josephus, and it was only after his removal that Cyrenius came into Judea; the taxing, therefore, must have been in A.U.C. 760, or later. The 15th Tiberius falls in with A.U.C. 782. Deduct from this 30 years, and we have the 8th year before the taxing for the date of the birth of Jesus. Unless, therefore, we suppose that Jesus was only 22 years old or less, when Luke says he was about 30, Luke contradicts not only Matthew, but himself, in the circumstances which he connects with the birth at Bethlehem. The eagerness of the early church to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies relative to the Messiah being considered, it seems probable, then, that the stories of his birth at Bethlehem were invented in order to meet an early objection of the Jews, alluded to John vii. 42: “Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" G. Smailfield, Printer, 69, Newgate Street, London. |