1- amongst those killed, said ' Melius est Herodis I OK uin esse quani hliuni.' This looks like a re- I' KMice ; but how strange, if it weie so, that the j\lt. narrative should fail to notice .sutli a notable circumstance ! It is a curious passage, but e\i- dently all its interest is in the Emperor's bon mot.
INFLUENCE
[jlaying on the Gr. teniis for 'pig' (5s) and 'son' (vios). It has often been pointed out that the number of little ones slain must have been com- paratively small (Edersheim says ' probably 20 at most,' i. 214), in correction of later exaggerations (perhaps helped by the vivid language of v.'^) ; but this does not destroy the pathetic element in such an association with the infancy of our Lord in Cliristian tradition. But, all things considered, though it is plausible to suggest that we have here a designed Messianic parallel to the deliverance of the infant Moses, the parallel is not so close as to suggest pure invention, and it is difficult to imagine all substratum of fact to be wanting.
Suggestions, also, which see in the ' Repose in Egypt,' as it used to be called, only a typical indi- cation of Jesus as the vine of Israel ' brought out of Egj'pt ' (art. ' Gospels ' in Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1780), are not wholly convincing and satisfactory. At the same time, as regards the whole narrative in Mt 2, we must be content to say that the state of our knowledge affords no solution of the difficulties to which it gives rise when compared with the representations of Lk., especially, e.g., in the im- plication that Joseph and Blary were continuously resident at Bethlehem probably until Jesus was nearly two years old, and that tliey went to Naza- reth to live only after their return from Egypt.
3. The sources of the Infancy narratives remain a subject of debate. Speaking of the l\It. docu- ment in particular, Sanday says ' we are in the dark' (art. 'Jesus Christ' in Hastings' DB ii. 644). Kesch's well-kno^\Ti attempt to establish an original Hebrew 'Childhood-Gospel,' having as parts of its contents both the Lk. and Mt. stories, has failed to carry conviction. An important problem, how- ever, is presented by a comparison of these naiTa- tives with the conspicuous features of certain of the Apocryphal Gospels, particularly the Protevan- geliuiH of James, the Gospel aceording to Thomas, and the Arabic Gospel of the Childhood. It may be said that it is just at .such a point as this that the apocrj-phal writings come most noticeably into contact with our Canonical Gospels, as also it is in the ministry and teaching of Jesus that they depart most widely from them. A superabundance of fantastic elements in these Christian Apocrypha is at once revealed on the most superficial compari- son : still there are elements in common, and here and there points of close contact. In the Gospel of the Childhood, e.g., we have the story of the Mag'
Mt
almcst liter- Ill and offering litiou of 1697, -uiae time the It is most iin- irectly borrowed
woven into the narrat ally paralleled, as also tlic .i of the threefold gift (m'- II. S; withLat. tr. p._17), tlmuuh u most curious divergencus api probable that aur narratives w from any of these apocryphal works and finally in corporated in the Canonical Gospels. It seems also unlikely that our Gospels were used specifically in the production of any of the Apocrypha, and that out of our Gospels the narratives in Mt 1.2 and Lk 1. 2 were simply taken for expansion into the extraordinary congeries of man'els of which these extra-canonical writings mostly consist. Why may not canonical and apocryphal accounts have alike originated in a common early tradition, though they have flowed so far apart? It is well to re- member that those who promulgated and those who received most of the Apocrvphal Gospels sincerely believed themselves to be Christians. Pseudo-Matthew indeed openly professes to be actuated by the lo^e of Christ in writing his wonder-crowded account of the infancy and boy- hood of our Lord. Our narratives, however, are •haracterized by a wonderful simplicity and re- straint when compared Mith such accounts as his ; they proclaim themselves so mnch nearer what the
facts must have been. But one source of apocry- phal developments appears to have been the deep- seated fondness of Jews iorhaggadCih (see Donehoo, The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, p. xix) ; and one great feature of such haggddOth was the interest shown in connecting OT prophecies with fulfilments. The question suggests itself whether haggadic elements may not even have found their way into our brief canonical narratives. If it be so, it cannot detract from the supreme v.nlue of the portraiture of Christ in the Gospels. G. H. Box (in ZNTW, 1905, p. 80 ff.) suggests that Mt 1.2 are to be regarded as a midrash, which means much the same thing, though otherwise ex- pressed. The historical basis, that is to .say, Ls treated in subservience to edification and the ex- pression of a ilessianic faith. See also artt. Babe, Childhood.
LiTERATCRE. — Lives of Christ : Supplemental section of Sandav's art. 'Jesus Christ' in Hastings' DB\ Ramsav, Was Christ born at Bethlehem?; Resch, 'Das Kindheits-evangelium ' {TU iv. Heft 3, 1897) ; Gore, Dissertations, p. 12 if .