did not make his census till ten years, at least, after the period assigned by Matthew for Christ's birth. This evangelist places his birth in the reign of Herod the First, and relates that his parents returned with him out of Egypt in the reign of Archelaus. Now, Archelaus reigned ten years, and it was not until his banishment that Quirinus was governor of Syria, and made the census of the population for the taxing. No taxing of all the world took place under Augustus: shall we, then, suppose that the writer we call Luke' has given us a hint for affixing the true period of the birth, namely, immediately after the banishment of Archelaus,-and that the other account is wrong? This would throw the whole chronology of the future life of Jesus into endless difficulties; and, moreover, a Roman census after the banishment of Archelaus would not have taken the parents of Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea. It was Judea only, and what belonged before to Archelaus, that was formed into a Roman province, and subject to the census. In Galilee, Herod Antipas reigned, as an allied prince, and none of his subjects dwelling at Nazareth could have been called to Bethle hem by the census. 'Luke' evidently wrote this census story long after the date of Christ's existence,-had a knowledge of the historic fact that Quirinus had made a census,--but made an effort to conceive of the undivided kingdom as it was under Herod the First, in order to get a census extending to Galilee. His acquaintance with the political relations of the period is imperfect, and so he produces a narrative of contradictions. For the Romans never removed people from their homes to take a census— they had a little more wisdom in statesmanship; and it is an egregious blunder to describe Mary as journeying to her own city to be inscribed, since, according to Jewish custom, inscriptions had relation to men only. "The Evangelist, however," says Strauss, "knew perfectly well what Mary had to do at Bethlehem; namely, to fulfil the prophecy of Micah (v. ch. 2 v.) by giving birth, in the city of David, to the Messiah. Now as he set out with the supposition that the habitual abode of the parents of Jesus was Nazareth, so he sought after a lever which should set them in motion towards Bethlehem, at the time of the birth of Jesus. Far and wide nothing presented itself but the celebrated census; he seized it the more unhesitatingly because the obscurity of his own view of the historical relations of that time, veiled from him the many difficulties connected with such a combination: he wished to place Mary in Bethlehem, and therefore times and circumstances were to accommodate themselves to his pleasure. Thus we have here neither a fixed point for the date of the birth of Jesus, nor an explanation of the occasion which led to his being born precisely at Bethlehem. If then-it may justly be said no other reason why Jesus should have been born at Bethlehem can be adduced than that given by Luke, we have absolutely no guarantee that Bethlehem was his birth-place." 4. That question, however, will come before us again. Let us next look at the miraculous circumstances related by Matthew and Luke as attending the birth of Jesus. Luke gives an account of angels appearing to "shepherds keeping watch over their flocks by night" but for what end? To make known the birth of the new-born king, is the most obvious answer; but so little did it avail, that, according to Matthew, it is the Magi who make it known in the neighbouring city of Jerusalem; and in the after-life of Jesus no trace of this appearance of the angels is to be found. Is not this, then, to attribute to God an empty display-the providing of an apparition of angels, which fails of its object, and is unworthy of Him? But Moses was visited,. in the field watching his flocks, by a heavenly apparition; and God took David, the forefather of the Messiah, from his sheepfolds at Bethlehem to be the shepherd of his people; and, therefore, in accordance with the Jewish mythical spirit, shepherds must be distinguished as favoured with some heavenly visitation coincident with the birth of the Messiah. Luke 29 proceeds to describe the circumcision of the child, when "eight days were "When they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Luke, be it noted, knows nothing of the visit of the Magi, nothing of the murderous intent of Herod, nothing of the Flight into Egypt, nothing of the return from thence-several years after. He relates circumstances which could not have occurred, if the Flight took place. But let us observe the account of Matthew more closely, lest we should be asserting what is untrue. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold there came payo-Magi, from the East to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews, for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him?" Herod calls his counsellors together, and they denote the Messiah's birth-place, by pointing to the passage in Micah, already referred to. Herod, whose craft and cruelty were equal, according to history, is, according to Matthew, foolish enough to dismiss the Magi on an errand of search with a command to bring him word of their finding the child-instead of detaining them in Jerusalem, while he sent instruments to perform the bloody act afterwards attributed to him. The Magi go, and find the child, offer him precious gifts, and then, by divine warning, return immediately to their own country. Joseph, by divine warning flees, with the child and its mother into Egypt, "and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled," &c. The tragedy of the "Murder of the Innocents" follows from Herod's rage, when he sees that he is "mocked of the wise men;" and then there is fulfilled that which was spoken of Jeremy the prophet saying, "In Rama," &c. Finally, when Herod is dead, an angel appears to Joseph in Egypt and commands him to return: he is proceeding to Judea-evidently, to Bethlehem, is meant-but is afraid to go thither, because of Herod's son, Archelaus, being king; yet has to be divinely warned again, and then goes to dwell in Nazareth. How is it possible to reconcile the accounts of Matthew and Luke? Did the peaceful circumstances related by Luke occur,-or is he wrong, and is the more tragic and adventurous story of Matthew, the right one? Which writer is possessed of "plenary inspiration"?-for we are compelWho can consent to be silent about it, when led to repeat the phrase. we know that it enslaves thousands, till they dare not look, for themselves, at the manifest contradictions of these legends? Can over But what were Matthew's impulses for writing his story? We thought Astrology had been banished from modern science, and shall leave divines to explain the fact of a revelation to the Magi, by means of a star. they explain to us how a star could go before the wise men and stand " where the young child was"? Some commentators would fain have a meteor-but the Greek word is not with them: dorp, a star: it is too palpable. Men of the nineteenth century, who hold that a star is a world, or a sun and centre of worlds, what do you make of such a story? Do you ever see a star change its apparent place? Is this relation worthy of nursery! any more credit than the tales of the The source of Matthew's "star" is evident. It is to be found in the 'prophecy of Balaam' (Numbers, xxiv. ch. 17 v.) "A star shall come out of Jacob." The legend attributed to Balaam originally referred to some fortunate and victorious ruler of Israel; but Aben Ezra, and many Rabbins, show that the prophecy was applied to the Messiah. The name Bar-cocheba, son of a star, assumed by a noted pseudo-Messiah under the emperor Adrian, was chosen with reference to the Messianic interpretation of Balaam's prophecy. It is not only a rabbinical idea that at the time of Messiah's birth, a star will appear in the east and remain for a long time visible; but, in Christ's time, this idea was especially prevalent. The ancient magus Balaam, by the spiritual eye, saw the Messianic star, the Jews believed; and its actual appearance must be recognised by the late magi. In the 60th chapter of Isaiah, again, Matthew found abundant mythic materialsthe "light," and "kings" coming to the "brightness of his rising," with gifts." Accordingly, the Roman Catholic Church has converted the Magi into the Three Kings. But I will not weary you with farther enlargement on this legend. The murderous decree of Herod has its mythical origin-(for you all know there is no contemporaneous evidence of its being a real event)-in the story of Moses. This story, in Christ's time, according to Josephus, was, that Pharoah was incited to issue his murderous decree by a communication from his interpreters of the sacred writings, who announced to him the birth of an infant destined to succour the Israelites and humble the Egyptians. For an instance of the wildly arbitrary mode in which 'prophecy' was applied to after events, let any one turn to Jeremiah, (xxxi. ch. 15 v.) and see if he can, any way, discover why "A voice was heard in Ramah, &c.," could be used by Matthew for the end to which he applies it, in this imaginary story. In Jeremiah, it refers to the carrying away of the Jews into Babylon. "Out of Egypt have I called my son"-the passage quoted from Hosea (xi. ch. 1 v.) gives the mythical source of Matthew's legend, at another stage. The passage, if you turn to it, originally alludes to Israel-Jehovah's collective son-a grand type of the Messiah. Messiah-so 'Matthew' decided-must fulfil that type; and therefore the 'Flight,' had first to be pictured. This loose manner of applying passages in a secondary sense was characteristic of the Jews: abundant instances of it occur in the rabbins; and you have a remarkable one in the Epistle to the Hebrews (i. ch. 5 v.) in which the words-"Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee"-are applied (from Psalm ii. v. 7.) in a mode that, to us, seems utterly unaccountable. But the appearing of the angel to Joseph in Egypt, commanding him to return-which has to be followed by a second divine revelation, when Joseph arrives nearly at Bethlehem-shocks us with its trifling. A miraculous star, and four visions, in one chapter! Does this legend honour the Deity? So many false interpretations of the Old Testament—are they proofs of "plenary inspiration ?" One quotation we cannot verify-the closing sentence in the 2nd chapter of Matthew, "He shall be called a Nazarene." There is no such sentence in the Old Testament. Is it possible, however to return to the events, so apparently varying, recorded by Matthew and Luke-to bring them into anything like accordance? Matthew ranges in close succession the visit of the Magi and the flight into Egypt. Luke represents the parents of Jesus as returning with the child, after the presentation in the temple, directly to Nazareth. Could the presentation have taken place before the visit of the Magi? How, then, after the scene narrated as having taken place in the temple, could the birth of the Messianic child be so entirely unknown in Jerusalem as the conduct of Herod, on the arrival of the Magi, implies? Did the presentation take place after the Magi had seen the child? How incredible that Joseph should be permitted to go to Jerusalem, with the child which Herod had just sought to kill! Still more incredible is it that the parents of Jesus should have returned to Bethlehem after the presentation in the temple. The two narratives are plainly irreconcilable-we have seen that each separate circumstance in them is derived from mythical ideas-and, therefore, can form but one conclusion: that the whole tissue of contradictions has no foundation in real history. Where is it most probable, Christ was born ?-is a question we still cannot forbear to ask; nor can the answer be very doubtful. We have seen that the supposed prophecy in Micah rendered it certain, in the minds of the Jews, that Messiah must be born in Bethlehem; but Nazareth was positively known to have been the residence of Jesus and his parents, when he first came into public life. Matthew assumes that the parents must have originally lived in Bethlehem, and only conducts them to settle down in Nazareth, by divine warning. Luke takes Nazareth to have been, all along, the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary,--and seizes upon the census of Quirinus as a cause for taking them to Bethlehem, temporarily. Setting aside the mythical necessity existing in the Jewish mind, for the birth of Jesus, as the promised Messiah, in the city of David-we can scarcely fail to conclude that Nazareth was Christ's birth-place. "The Galilean, "the Nazarene," were the epithets constantly applied to Jesus, in early times. As "Jesus of Nazareth," he is introduced (according to John) by Philip to Nathanael, who asks "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" He is known among the populace by this name, and the demoniacs address him by this name. The inscription on the cross gives him this name, and by it the Apostles proclaim him after his supposed resurrection. His disciples, too, were long called "Nazarenes," and it was not until a late period, that that title was exclusively applied to an heretical sect. In a word, Nazareth is again and again mentioned as his country; and it was, most probably, the place where he was born, as well as brought up. 6. Lastly, Matthew is silent about the life of Jesus, from the return out of Egypt to the baptism by John; but Luke gives us an anecdote of Christ's conduct while in his twelfth year. The extraordinary position he fills toward the doctors, in Luke's narrative, is far out-stripped in marvellous details by the Apocryphal Gospels. The state of wonder ascribed to his parents by Luke resembles, however, the pictures in those writings. Wher. Jesus speaks of the House of God, his Father, they do not understand him; and yet Mary must have understood him, if the angel had ever appeared to her, and told her that her child should be called the 'Son of God; and if all the supernatural warnings, before related, had ever been given concerning him. But Moses, Samuel, Solomon, and Daniel, all displayed singular wisdom, and received great marks of divine favour, in their twelfth year, according to Josephus, Philo, and the Rabbins. It would, therefore, be a foregone conclusion with the early disciples of Jesus, that, as the Messiah, he could not have been excelled by such remarkable types of himself. (To be concluded in next number.) ADVANTAGES OF KNOWLEDGE.-As the power of acquiring knowledge is to be ascribed to reason, so the attainment of it mightily strengthens and improves it, and thereby enables it to enrich itself with further acquisitions. Knowledge in general expands the mind, exalts the faculties, refines the taste of pleasure, and opens numerous sources of intellectual enjoyment. By means of it we become less dependent for satisfaction upon the sensitive appetites, the gross pleasures of sense are more easily despised, and we are made to feel the superiority of the spiritual to the material part of our nature. Instead of being continually solicited by the influence and irritation of sensible objects, the mind can retire within herself and expatiate in the cool and quiet walks of contemplation.-Robert Hall. ON THE DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE.-When knowledge, instead of being bound up in books, and kept in libraries and retirement, is obtruded on the public in distinct sheets; when it is canvassed in every assembly, and exposed upon every table, I cannot forbear reflecting upon that passage in the Proverbs: "Wisdom crieth without, she uttereth her voice in the streets: she crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the opening of the gates. In the city she uttereth her words, saying, how long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning? and fools hate knowledge ?"—Spectator. ADVERTISEMENTS. A PRESENT TO THE READERS OF REYNOLDS'S SUPPLEMENT TO THE "POLITICAL INSTRUCTOR." Last Week's Number (9), price only 1d., of MISCELLANY. This work has been pronounced one of the best of Mr. Reynolds' tales, and is illustrated by faithful wood-cut representations of all Ho arth's best REYNOLDS'S POLITICAL INSTRUCTOR, Edited by G. . M. REYNOLDS, contained a Portrait of George Sand; and with that Number was given, gratis, a "Supplement" of four pages, containing articles of the most interesting and startling description, and with the following illustrations:-The Mountain Party in the National Assembly of France-A Portrait of Kossuth-A Portrait of Ledru Rollin-And Portraits of Bem and Dembinski. pictures. It will be issued in Weekly Penny Num-Dicks, 7, Wellington-street North, Strand. London:-Published, for the Proprietor, by John In "Reynolds' Miscellany" is now publishing a THE MYSTERIES OF THE PEOPLE; OR, THE London:--Published for the Proprietor, by John THE PEOPLE; A WEEKLY PERIODICAL, PRICE ONE PENNY, THE PEOPLE is thoroughly Democratic. It is, in fact, Republican. It strikes at the life of all Hereditary and Class Legislation; it striks at the heart both of Monarchy and Aristocracy. It aims at the thorough and universal emancipation of humanity. It does these openly, boldly, and zealously. It has besides, of late, become the counsellor of intending Emigrants. Mr. Barker has been in America, and is giving his readers the result of his travels and observations there. It is, besides, the Herald and Advocate of Reform in general. It pleads for Progress and Improvement in all things. It seeks to promote the free and full development of the whole human being and of the whole human family. Teetotalism, Phonography, and Phrenology, Reforin in Theology, Dietetics, and the Healing Art, all share its aid. It is a wholesale and universal Reformer. It is published by JAMES WATSON, 3, Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster Row, London; and ABEL HEYWOOD, Oldham-street, Manchester; and may be had of all liberal booksellers. On the First of February, 1859, will appear, THE PEOPLE'S REVIEW: DEVOTED TO PROGRESS. (Excelsior.) EDITED BY FRIENDS IN COUNCIL. Though the People have long been stirred with the Thous spirit of improvement, no Literary Magazine has been issued at a price which they could compass. lies, while the many, who more need it, have no The few have their critical Montlilies and Quartersuch Guide to Books. The People's Review purposes to supply the deficiency, and in this day of any Books to indicate which are the useful ones. be able to read only one-fortieth part of the new A person reading twelve hours every day, would books issued every year, exclusive of newspapers. To trace a short path through his labyrinth, and to relieve the ever multiplying class of thinkers from the difficulty which Hobbes felt when he said 'If I should read as much as my neighbours I should be as ignorant as they are,' is the aim of the People's Review. That elongated genius, 'Bob Thin,' will make his obeisance in the first number, intending to have TWENTY-SIX CUTS AT THE TIMES! London: C. Mitchell, Red Lion-court, Fleet-st. London: Printed by WILLIAM HORSELL, 190, High |