Soltau, who also supports the same origin for St. Matthew's story, adduces the parallels which in his opinion may be fitly drawn between the visit of the Parthian king to Rome and the visit of the Magi to Bethlehem {Die Geburtsgeschichtc Jem Christi, 1902, p. 37). As might be exjiected, he makes much of the fact that Tiridates is said to have knelt and worshipped Nero just as the Wise Men fell down to worship Jesus. But the only other verbal parallel which he is able to adduce is this : Tiridates, according to Dio Cassius (Ixiii. 2 ff.), did not return by the way which he ■came ; beneath the quotation of this statement Soltau writes as a parallel the words of St. Matthew : ' and they departed into their own country another way' (Mt 2'^). A strong case scarcely stands in need of such parallels as these. *
But an attempt is often made to trace St. Matthew's story to Jewish sources, and reference is made to the words and expectations of the pro- phets. And no doubt it is easy to affirm that such a passage as Is ei""- might have contributed to the formation of the legend of the adoration of the Magi. But the Evangelist, who loves to quote prophecies apposite in any de^ee to the events connected with our Lord's birtu, makes no refer- ence to this passage of Isaiah which Christian thought has so often associated with the Epiphany. As a matter of fact, it would seem that the pro- phecy referred primarily, not to the Messiah, but to the city of Jerusalem and to the day of its latter glory.
No doubt the Evangelist does definitely connect at least two Old Testament prophecies with the visit of the Magi and the events immediately sub- sequent to it. But the question may be fairly asked. Which is more probable, that the flight into Egypt actually took place, or that the Jewish Evangelist, or some later hand, introduced the incident as the fulfilment of an OT prophecy which had primarily no definite or obvious con- nexion, to say the least of it, with the Messiah ?t Or, again, if some such event as the Massacre of the Innocents at Bethlehem actually occurred, we can understand that a Jewish Evangelist could find in that event, and in the mourning of the mothers of Israel, a furtlier fulfilment of Jere- miah's words (3P^). But there is no obvious reason why he should have hit upon and intro- duced such words unless some event had hap- pened at Bethlehem which recalled to his mind the picture which the prophet had drawn, and the scene once enacted within a few miles of the city of David.
Other explanations are, of course, forthcoming. * Why,' asks Usener, 'is Egypt selected as the place of refuge?' and one answer is that mythological ideas may have had their
their flight when attacked by the gia: in Ency. Bibl. iii. 3351 ; and ZNTW p. 217). t In any considera- tion of such statements it is well to remer ' "
whatever date we assign to St. Matthew,?
* See also the recent criticisms of A. Jeremias, Jlabylonischcs im NT, 1905, p. 55.
t On the exact words o the Hebrew, see Zahn, E also Delitzsch, Mesaiauische Weisaafixmgen^,
X Indications are not wanting tliat this constant and some- what reckless appeal to supposed pagan analogies is being over- done ; see, e.g., Farnell's remarks in the Hibbert Journal, July 1904, p. 827.
5 In art. ' Gospels' in Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1893, mention is made of the Syriao writing attributed to Eusebius, and it is main- tained that, according to this document, the story of the Magi, committed to writing in the interior of Persia, was, in a.d. 119, in the episcopate of Xystus of Rome, made search for, dis-
an historic period of the world's history, and that the writer at least claims to place his events in relation to historical data. Nothing was more natural than that Egypt should be chosen as the place of refuge ; it was nigh at hand, the communication
Nothing was more in accordance with the char- acter of Herod than the deed of bloodshed ascribed to him, and modern days supply many proofs of the unscrupulous manner in which a jealous and suspicious potentate has not hesitated to rid him- self of anyone likely to render his tenure of sove- reignty insecure (see, e.g., amongst recent writers Kreyher, Die pmgfrdulkhe Geburt des Herrn, 1904, p. 83).* On the other hand, it is very improb- able that the Evangelist would have invented a story in which the birth of the Messiah was made to bring bitter sorrow into so many Jewish homes. +
Nothing, again, was more likely' than that Joseph should withdraw into Galilee after the return from Egypt, since we have evidence that Archelaus very soon after his accession gave proof of the same cruel and crafty behaviour as had characterized his father (Jos. BJ II. vi. 2).J
In the next place, it is well to remember that there is at all events one instance of a prophecy cited in this part of the Gospel of St. Matthew the fulfilment of which is beyond doubt, if we can be said to know anything at all of the liistori- cal Jesus (2-^). And yet no one with any discern- ment could possibly maintain that our Lord's residence and bringing up in Nazareth were intro- duced for the sake of finding a fulfilment for a prophecy which it is .so difficult to trace to any one source in OT literature. But if in this case it is certain that the prophecy could not have created the fact, why in the case of the other prophecies cited should their alleged fulfilment be credited to the extravagant imagination of the Evangelist, and to that alone ?§