iii. Apocryphal accounts. —It is of the greatest significance that just in that portion of our Lord's life concerning which the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke are most silent, the Apocryphal
covered, and written in Greek. But Zahn (Einleltuno, ii. p. 266) points out that this statement at least shows that by the date named the year of the coming of the Magi was discussed not only in Rome, but in various places. He further argues, with ^ood reason, from the same statement of the pseudo- Eusebius, that the narrative of Mt 2 had already been incorpor- ated in the Gospel before a.d. 119. See, further, Ch. Quart. Rev. July 1904, p. 389. In this connexion it may be noted that it is difficult to see why the statement of St. Ignatius, exagger- ated as it is, should not be taken to refer to the star of the Magi (Ephes. xix. 2, 3). On the significance of this early reference to the Gospel narrative in St. Ignatius, see Headlam', Criticism of the NT, p. 166 (St. Margaret's Lectures). In his recent Com- mentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, Wellhausen begins with 31, which is certainly a short and easy method of dealing with the two earlier chapters.
« See, further, art. Magi. It may, however, be here noted that Ramsay remarks on Macrobius, Sat. ii. 4, that it is not probable that Macrobius (a pagan, about a.d. 400) was indebted to a Christian writer for his information, and that therefore the story of the Massacre of the Infants was recorded in some pagan source (Was Christ horn at Bethlehem! pp. 219, 220). Zdckler also refers to Macrobius as affording a testimony from a non-biblical source to the truth of the Massacre at Bethlehem (art. 'Jesus Christus' in PRE-i). On the silence of Jost-phus see, further, Zahn, Eeangeliinti des Matthdus, p. 10'.' ; and Edersheim, The Temple at the Time ufJesvs Christ, p. 35 f.
t Zahn, EmiuKliuiiL des Matthaus, p. 109. See, too, the same reference 'for the improbability of supposing that the story in St. Matthew was derived from the rescue of .'\Ioses (Ex 115 210 ; Jos. Ant. 11. ix. 2) ; and cf. art. M.ioi.
{'There is a noticeable difference between St. Matthew's references to the political situation in Palestine and St. Luke's.
noted by Burton in his Introduction t
BIRTH OF CHRIST
BLASPHEMY
Gospels are most effusive.* Here was an oppor- tunity for them to occupy a vacant space, anJ they lost no endeavour in tryinj; to fill it. Both in the details of the Nativity and in the events just referred to as subsequent to it, ve find ample proofs of this. Thus Elisabeth is fearful that in accord- ance with the commands of Herod her son John may be slain. And when she can find no place of concealment, she begs a mountain to receive mother and cliUd, and instantly the mountain is cleft to receive her ; and a light shines round about, for an angel of the Lord is watching for her preservation. And upon this there follows a tragic scene of the murder of Zacharias, who is slain for his refusal to betray his son. As the Holy Family pass through Egypt, the marvellous accompanies them at every step. In these apocryphal stories, lions, dragons, and panthers adore the infant Jesus ; a palm tree bends at His word that His Motlier may eat the fruit ; in one day the travellers accomplish a journey of thirty days ; the idols prostrate themselves in the temples before the Mother and her Child. And we know how the long silence of our Lord's life in our
for the introduction of the same in- ipid and fantastic tales, t Even in modern days
opportunity sipid and fai there have not been
ranting writers who hi
equal lack of historical data.t In all this and much else we mark again and again the reserve so characteristic of St. Matthew and St. Luke alike, a reserve and restraint often emphasized by earlier commentators, and again recently referred to by German writers so far apart in point of view as Gunkel and Hermann Oremer.§
iv. Convergent tr.iditions and the main FACTS. — It is often said that the narratives in our two canonical Gospels contradict one another. But although, no doubt, it is difficult to harmonize them in their particulars and sequences, their in- dependence is evident proof that there was no attempt on the part of one Evangelist to make his work the complement or corrector of the other.H Antecedently we might have expected that St. Luke, the Gentile Evangelist, would have told us of the adoration of the Magi, and that the Hebrew Evangelist would have given us the picture of obedience on the part of Mother and Child to the details of the Law and the worship of the Temple. And it is justly urged as no small proof of the truch of the narratives that each Evangelist could
* For a useful clasaiacation of the most important of the Apocryphal Gospels, and a list of those which claim to fill up the gaps in our knowledge of the Infancy and Childhood of Jesus, see art. 'Apocryphal Gospels' in Hastinjs' DB, Ext.
blance is, in truth, very slight and unessenliiil.
t It cannot be said that Conrady's attempt to derive oui Gospel accounts of the Nativity from the Apocryphal Gospels