ADORATION OF THE MAGI AND SHEPHERDS--MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS;--AND
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH FOLLOWED THE BIRTH OF JESUS.
Of the four historians of Jesus adopted by the church, two are wholly
silent on the facts we are to relate in this chapter; and Matthew and
Luke, who have recorded them, are not at all unanimous in particulars.
So discordant are their relations, that the ablest commentators do not
know how to reconcile them. These differences, it is true, are less
perceptible when the evangelists are read the one after the other, or
without reflection; but they become particularly striking when we take
the trouble of comparing them. This is, undoubtedly, the reason why we
have hitherto had no concordance of the gospels which received the
general approbation of the church. Even those which have been printed
have not been universally adopted, though it must be acknowledged that
they contain nothing contrary to faith. It is, perhaps, from judicious
policy that the heads of the church have not approved of any system on
this point. They have, probably, felt the impossibility of reconciling
narratives so discordant as those of the four Evangelists; for the Holy
Spirit, doubtless with a view to exercise the faith of the saints, has
inspired them very differently. Besides, an able concordance of the
gospels would prove a dangerous work:--it would bring together facts
related by authors, who, far from supporting, would reciprocally weaken
each other--a circumstance which could not fail to stagger at least the
faith of the compiler.
Matthew, who, according to common opinion, (though a very erroneous
one,) wrote the first history of Jesus, asserts, that as soon as he was
born, and still in the stable at Bethlehem, Magi came from the East to
Jerusalem, and inquired where the king of the Jews was, whose star they
had observed in their own country. Herod, who then reigned in Judea,
being informed of the motive of their journey, consulted the people of
the law; and having learned that the Christ was to be born at Bethlehem,
he permitted the Magi to go there, recommending to them to inform
themselves of this child, that he himself might do him homage. (Matt.
ii. 1.)
It appears, from the narrative of Matthew, that as soon as the Magi left
Herod, they took the road to Bethlehem, a place not far from Jerusalem.
It is surprising that this prince, alarmed at the arrival of the Magi,
who had thus announced the birth of a king of the Jews, did not use more
precaution to allay his own uneasiness, and that of the capital, which
the gospel represents as in a state of consternation at this grand
event. It would have been very easy for him to have satisfied himself of
the fact without being under the necessity of relying on strangers, who
did not execute his commission. The Magi did not return; Joseph had time
to save himself and his little family by flight; and Herod remained
tranquil in spite of his suspicions and fears. It was not till after a
considerable interval that he got into a passion on finding himself
deceived; and then, to preserve his crown in safety, he ordered a
general massacre of the children of Bethlehem and the neighboring
villages! But why suppose such conduct in this sovereign? He had
assembled the doctors of the law and principal men of the nation; their
advice had confirmed the rumor spread by the wise men; they said it was
at Bethlehem that Christ was to be born, and yet Herod did nothing for
his own tranquility! Either Herod had faith in the prophecies of the
Jews, or he had not. In the first case, and instead of relying on
strangers, he ought himself to have gone with all his court to
Bethlehem, and paid homage to the Saviour of the nation. In the second
case, it is absurd to make Herod order a general massacre of infants, on
account of a suspicion founded on a prophecy which he did not believe.
This prince's indignation is said not to have been roused till after the
lapse of several days, and after he perceived that the Magi derided him,
and took another road. Why did he not learn by the same means the flight
of Jesus, of Joseph, and of his mother? Their retreat must certainly
have been observed in a place so small as Bethlehem. It will perhaps be
said, that God on this occasion, permitted Herod to be blinded; but God
should not have permitted the inhabitants of Bethlehem and its environs
to be so obstinate in preserving a secret that was to cost the lives of
all their children. Possessed of the power of working miracles, could
not God have saved his son by more gentle means than the useless
massacre of a great number of innocents?--On the other hand, Herod was
not absolute master in Judea. The Romans would not have permitted him to
exercise such cruelties; and the Jewish nation, persuaded of the birth
of the Christ, would not have been accessary to them. A king of England,
more absolute than a petty sovereign of Judea, dependent on the Romans,
would not be obeyed, were he to order his guards to go and cut the
throats of all the children in a neighboring village, because three
strangers, in passing through London, had said to him, that among the
infants born in that village there was one, who, according to the rules
of astrology, was destined to be one day king of Great Britain. At the
time when astrology was in vogue, they would have contented themselves
with causing search to be made for the suspected infant; they would have
kept it in solitary confinement, or perhaps put it to death; but without
comprehending other innocent children in its proscription.
We might oppose to the relation of Matthew the silence of the other
evangelists, and especially that of the historian Josephus, who, having
reasons to hate Herod, would not have failed to relate a fact so likely
to render him odious as the massacre of the innocents. Philo is likewise
silent on the subject; and no reason can be assigned why these two
celebrated historians should have agreed in concealing a circumstance so
horrible. We cannot suppose it has proceeded from hatred to the
Christian religion; for that detached fact would prove neither for or
against it. We are, therefore, warranted to conclude that this massacre
is a fable; and that Matthew seems to have invented it merely to have
the opportunity of applying as ancient prophecy, which was his
predominant taste. But in this instance he has deceived himself. The
prophecy which he applied to the massacre of the innocents, is taken
from Jeremiah, (xxxi. v. 15 and 16.) All the Jews understood it as
relating to the Babylonish captivity. It is as follows: "Thus saith the
Lord; a voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping: Rachel
weeping for her children refused to be comforted because they were not."
The following verse is so plain, that it is inconceivable why Matthew
ventured to apply it to the pretended massacre at Bethlehem: "Thus saith
the Lord, refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for
thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and thy children shall come
again from the land of the enemy." Their return from the captivity is
here clearly pointed out, when the Israelites should again plant vines
after obtaining possession of their own country.
It is also to accomplish a prophecy, that Matthew makes Jesus travel
into Egypt. This journey, or rather Jesus' return, had, according to
him, been predicted by Hosea in these words: "Out of Egypt have I called
my son." But it is evident, that this passage is to be considered only
as relating to the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, through
the ministry of Moses. Besides, the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt,
do not agree with some circumstances which happened in his infancy, as
related by Luke, who informs us, that at the end of eight days Jesus was
circumcised. The time of Mary's purification being accomplished
according to the law of Moses, Joseph and his mother carried Jesus to
Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord agreeably to the law, which
ordained the consecrating the first born (first fruits), and offering a
sacrifice for them. On this occasion, Luke tells us that Simeon took the
infant in his arms, and declared in the presence of those assisting at
the ceremony, that the child was the Saviour of Israel. An old
prophetess, called Anna, bore the same testimony, and spoke of him to
all who looked for the redemption of the Jews. But why were speeches,
thus publicly made in the temple of Jerusalem, in which city Herod
resided, unknown to a prince so suspicious? They were much better
calculated to excite his uneasiness, and awaken his jealousy than the
arrival of astrologers from the East.
Did Joseph and Mary, who came to Jerusalem for the presentation of
Jesus, and purification of his mother, return to Bethlehem? and went
they thence into Egypt in place of going to Nazareth? Luke says, that
when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. But in what time
did the parents of Jesus accomplish all that the law ordained? Was it
before going into Egypt, or after their return from that country, where,
according to Matthew, they had taken refuge to shelter themselves from
the cruelty of Herod? Did the purification of the virgin, and the
presentation of her son in the temple, take place before or after the
death of that wicked prince? According to Leviticus, the purification of
a mother who had brought a son into the world, was to be made at the end
of thirty days. Hence we see how very difficult it is to reconcile the
flight into Egypt, and the massacre of the innocents, which Matthew
relates, with the narrative of Luke, who says, that, "after having
performed the ordinances of the law, Joseph and Mary returned into
Galilee, to their own city Nazareth;" and then adds, "they went to
Jerusalem every year to celebrate the passover." If we could adopt the
relation of the two evangelists, at what time are we to place the coming
of the Magi from the East in order to adore Jesus; the anger of Herod;
the flight into Egypt; and the massacre of the innocents? Either the
relation of Luke is defective, or Matthew wished to deceive his readers
with improbable tales. In whatever way we consider the matter, the Holy
Spirit, who inspired these apostles, will be found to have committed a
mistake.
There is another fact on which our two evangelists do not better agree.
Matthew, as we have seen, makes the Magi come, guided by a star, to
Bethlehem, from the extremity of the East, to adore the child Jesus, and
offer him presents. Luke, less taken with the marvellous, makes this
child adored by simple shepherds, who watched their flocks during night,
and to whom an angel announced the great event of the birth of the
Saviour of Israel. The latter evangelist speaks neither of the
appearance of the star, of the coming of the Magi, nor of the cruelty of
Herod--circumstances, however, which ought to have been recorded by
Luke, who informs us that he was so exactly informed of every thing
concerning Jesus.
The parents of Jesus, either after their return from Egypt, or after his
presentation in the temple, went to reside at Nazareth. Matthew, as
usual, perceives in this the accomplishment of the prediction, _he shall
be called a Nazarene_; but unfortunately for his purpose, this prophecy
is not to be found in the Bible, nor can it be imagined by whom it was
uttered. It is however certain, that _Nazarene_ among the Jews signified
a _vagabond_, a person excluded from the rest of the world; that
Nazareth was a pitiful town, inhabited by beings so wretched that their
poverty had become proverbial; and that beggars, vagrants, and people
whom nobody would own, were called _Nazarenes_.
The first Christians were so styled. We find them also called
_Ebionites_, derived from a Hebrew word which signifies a _mendicant_, a
_wretch_, and a _pauper_. St. Francis and St. Dominic, who, in the 13th
century, proposed to revive primitive Christianity, founded orders of
mendicant monks, destined to live solely on alms, to be true
_Nazarenes_, and to levy contributions on the community, which these
vagabonds have never ceased to oppress. Salmeron, in order to encourage
these mendicant monks, has maintained that Jesus himself was a beggar.
The name Nazarene was given to the apostles and Jews, who were first
converted. The other Jews regarded them as heretics and excommunicated
persons; and, according to Jerome, anathematised them in all their
synagogues under the name of Nazarenes. The Jews even at present give
the name of Nazarenes (Nozerim) to the Christians whom the Arabs and
Persians call Nazari. The first converts of Jesus and his apostles, were
only some reformed Jews: they preserved circumcision and other usages
appointed by the law of Moses. In this they followed the example of
Jesus, who being circumcised, and a Jew during his whole life, had often
taught, that it was necessary to respect and observe the law. It is,
therefore, surprising to see them afterwards treated as heretics. But we
shall (in chap. 17) see the true cause of this change. It was owing to
Paul, whose party prevailed over Peter's, the other apostles', and the
Nazarenes or Judaising Christians. Paul corrected and reformed the
system of Jesus, who had preached only a Judaism reformed. The apostle
of the Gentiles succeeded in making his master, and his old comrades, be
rewarded as heretics, or bad Christians. Thus it is that theologists
take the liberty of rectifying the religion of the Saviour they adore!
We have seen, in the course of this chapter, how little harmony exists
between the two evangelists respecting the circumstances attending the
birth of Jesus. Let us now examine what could have been the views of
these two writers in relating these facts so differently. It is
impossible that Jesus, as Luke relates, could constantly reside at
Nazareth till he was twelve years of age if it be true that he was
carried soon after his birth into Egypt, where Matthew makes him remain
until the death of Herod. Even in the time that Jesus lived, he was
upbraided with his stay in Egypt. His enemies asserted that he there
learned magic, to which they attributed the wonders, or cunning tricks,
they saw him perform. Luke is silent as to the journey to Egypt, which
made his hero suspected. He fixes him, therefore, at Nazareth, and makes
him go every year with his parents to Jerusalem. But the precaution of
that evangelist seems to have been useless. Matthew, who wrote before
him, had established the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt. Origen, in
his dispute with Celsus, does not deny it. Hence we see, that the
Christian doctors did not doubt that Jesus had been in that country,
notwithstanding the silence of Luke. Let us endeavor then to develope
the motives of these two writers.
The Jews were agreed in the expectation of a messiah; but as the
different orders of the state had their prophets, they also possessed
different signs by which they were to know the deliverer. The great, the
rich, and well informed persons, did not surely expect that the
deliverer of Israel would be born in a stable, and spring from the dregs
of the people. They, undoubtedly, anticipated their deliverance by a
prince, a warrior, a man of power, able to make himself respected by the
nations inimical to Judea, and to break in pieces their chains. The
poor, on the contrary, who, as well as the great and the rich, have
their portion of self-love, thought they might flatter themselves that
the messiah would be born in their class. Their nation and their
neighbors presented many examples of great men sprung from the bosom of
poverty; and the oracles with which this nation was fed, were of such a
nature that every family believed itself entitled to aspire to the honor
of giving birth to a messiah; though the most general opinion was, that
he was to come of the race of David. Shepherds, and people of the lowest
order might readily believe that a woman, delivered in a stable at
Bethlehem, had brought Jesus into the world. It may likewise be presumed
that Mary, with a view to render herself interesting, said to those who
visited her that she was descended from the blood of kings; a pretension
well adapted to excite the commiseration and wonderment of the people.
This secret, and the confused remembrance of some prophecies about
Bethlehem, the native country of David, were sufficient to operate on
the imaginations of these silly people, little scrupulous about proofs
of what was told them.
Matthew, who reckoned on the credulity of his readers, had his head full
of prophecies and popular notions. To fill up a blank of thirty years in
his history of Jesus, he contrived to make him travel into Egypt,
without foreseeing the objections that might be made on account of the
neglect of the holy family to fulfil the ordinances of the law; such as
the circumcision of the child, his presentation in the temple, the
purification of his mother, and the celebration of the passover;
ceremonies which only could be performed at Jerusalem. Perhaps it is to
justify the journey to Egypt, and those negligences, that Matthew
introduces the prophecy of Hosea relative to the return from that place.
It seems also to countenance the duration of Jesus's abode there that he
relates the wrath of Herod, and the fable of the massacre of the
innocents, which he makes that prince order, though his crimes had, in
other respects, rendered him sufficiently odious to the Jews as well as
to strangers. Mankind in general are disposed to believe every thing of
a man who has become famous by his wickedness.
Luke, to elude the reproaches which might be thrown on Jesus on account
of his residence and journey in Egypt, has not mentioned it at all; but
his silence does not destroy its reality. It was necessary to free Jesus
from the suspicion of magic, but he has not cleared him of accusations
brought against his birth, which are quite as weighty.
Celsus, a celebrated physician, who lived in the second century of
Christianity, and who had carefully collected all which had been
published against Jesus, asserts that he was the fruit of an illicit
intercourse. Origen, in his works against Celsus, has preserved this
accusation, but he has not transmitted the proofs on which it was
founded. The incredulous, however, have endeavoured to supply them, and
found the opinion of Celsus on what follows:
_First._ From the testimony of Matthew himself, it is most certain that
Joseph was very much dissatisfied with the pregnancy of his wife, in
which he had no part. He formed the design of quitting her secretly; a
resolution from which he was diverted by an angel, or dream, or perhaps
reflection, which always passes among Jews for the effect of an
inspiration from on high. It appears, however, that this design of
Joseph had transpired, and was afterwards turned into a matter of
reproach against Jesus. But Luke, more prudent than Matthew, has not
ventured to mention either the ill humor of Joseph, or the good-natured
conduct he followed. Neither do we find, though he formed this
resolution as to Mary, that this easy man again appeared on the stage
from the time Jesus entered on it. We are no where informed of his
death, and it is obvious that he never afterwards beheld his putative
son with an eye of kindness.--When, at thirty years of age, Jesus and
his mother went to the wedding at Cana, there is no mention of Joseph.
If we admit with Luke, the history of Jesus's dispute with the doctors
in the temple of Jerusalem, we shall find a new proof of the
indifference which subsisted between the pretended father and supposed
son: they met at the end of three days, and deigned not to interchange a
word. Epiphanius (lib. i. 10.) assures us that Joseph was very old at
the time of his marriage with the virgin, and adds that he was a widower
and father of six children by his first wife.--According to the
_proto-gospel_, the good man had much difficulty in prevailing on
himself to espouse Mary, whose age intimidated him; but the high-priest,
finding that Joseph was the man most conformable to his own views,
succeeded in removing his scruples.
_Secondly._ If to these presumptions are joined testimonies more
positive, and a high antiquity, which confirm the suspicions entertained
concerning the birth of Jesus, we shall obtain proofs that must convince
every unprejudiced person. The Emperor Julian, as well as Celsus, who
both had carefully examined all the writings existing in their time for
and against the Christian religion and its author, represent the mother
of Jesus in a very unfavorable light.
In the works of the Jews, he is treated as an illegitimate child; and,
almost in our days, Helvidius, a learned Protestant critic, as well as
several others, have maintained, not only that Jesus was the fruit of a
criminal intercourse, but also that Mary, repudiated by Joseph, had
other children by different husbands. Besides, this supposed virgin did
not want a reason for forsaking Joseph, and flying into Egypt with her
son. A prevailing tradition among the Jews states, that she made this
journey to shelter herself from the pursuits of her spouse, who, in
spite of the nocturnal visions which had been employed to pacify him,
might have delivered her up to the rigor of the laws. We know that the
Hebrews did not understand jesting on this subject.
We also find in the _Talmud_, the name of Panther, surnamed
_Bar-Panther_, whom they reckon in the number of the husbands of the
Virgin. From this it would appear, that Mary, repudiated by Joseph, or
after her flight, espoused Panther, an Egyptian soldier, her favorite
lover, and the real father of Jesus. John Damascene thought to repair
the injury which this anecdote might do to Mary's reputation, by saying
that the name of _Bar-Panther_ was hereditary in the family of Mary, and
consequently in that of Joseph. But, _1st_, either Mary was not the
kinswoman of Joseph, or she was not the cousin of Elizabeth, who was
married to a priest, and therefore of the tribe of Levi.--2dly, we no
where find in the Bible the name of _Panther_ among the descendants of
David. If this had been an hereditary surname in that family, it would
be found somewhere, unless we suppose that John Damascene learned it by
a particular revelation. 3dly, The name of _Panther_ is by no means
Hebrew.
It will perhaps be said, that these rumours, so injurious to Jesus and
his mother, are calumnies invented by the enemies of the Christian
religion. But why decide if the pleas of both parties are not
investigated? The imputations are very ancient; they have been advanced
against Christianity ever since its origin, and they have never been
satisfactorily refuted. In the time of Jesus, we find that his
cotemporaries regarded his wonders as the effects of magic, the
delusions of the devil, the consequences of the power of Belzebub.--The
relations of Jesus were also of that opinion, and regarded him as an
imposter--a circumstance stated in the gospel itself, where we shall
afterwards find that they wanted to arrest him. On the other hand, Jesus
never speaks of his infancy, nor of the time that had preceded his
preaching:--he did not wish to recur to circumstances dishonorable to
his mother, towards whom, indeed, we shall very soon find him failing in
filial respect.
The evangelists, in like manner, pass very slightly over the first years
of their hero's life. Matthew makes him return from Egypt on the death
of Herod, without mentioning in what year that happened. He thus leaves
his commentators in doubt whether Jesus was then two or ten years old.
We find that the term of ten years is, through complaisance, invented on
account of the dispute between him and the doctors of Jerusalem, which
Luke places in his twelfth year. This excepted, Jesus disappeared from
the scene not to shew himself again till thirty years of age.
It is difficult to discover what he did until that age. If we credit
Luke, he remained at Nazareth. Yet it is clear that he was somewhere
else, for the purpose of learning the part which he was afterwards to
play. It has been supposed, not without reason, that Jesus passed a
considerable part of his life among the contemplative _Essenians_, or
_Therapeutes_, who were a kind of enthusiastic Jewish monks, living in
the vicinity of Alexandria, in Egypt, where it appears he drew up his
severe and monastic doctrine. If he had always resided at Nazareth, the
inhabitants of that small town would have known him perfectly. Very far
from this;--they were surprised at seeing him when thirty years of age.
They only conjectured that they knew him; and asked each other, "Is not
this the son of Joseph?"--a question very ridiculous in the mouths of
persons who must have been in the constant habit of seeing Jesus in the
narrow compass of their town. This does not prevent Justin from telling
us, that he became a carpenter in the workshop of his pretended father,
and that he wrought at buildings or instruments of husbandry. But such a
profession could not long agree with a man in whom we find an ambitious
and restless mind. The _Gospel_ of the _Infancy_ informs us, that Jesus,
when young, amused himself with forming small birds of clay, which he
afterwards animated, and then they flew into the air. The same book
says, that he knew more than his schoolmaster, whom he killed for having
struck him, because Jesus refused to read the letters of the alphabet.
We find also, that Jesus assisted Joseph in his labors, and by a miracle
lengthened the pieces of wood, when cut too short or too narrow. All
these extravagancies are not more difficult to believe than many other
wonders related in the acknowledged gospels.
We shall here quit Luke in order to follow Matthew, who places the
baptism of John after the return from Egypt, and makes Jesus forthwith
commence his mission. It is at this epoch, perhaps, that we ought to
begin the life of Jesus.--Yet, to let nothing be lost to the reader of
the evangelical memoirs, we thought it our duty not to pass over in
silence the circumstances which have been noticed, as these
preliminaries are calculated to throw much light on the person and
actions of Jesus. Besides, the interval between his birth and preaching
has not been the part of his history least exposed to the darts of
criticism. Matthew, as we have seen, to account for his master's absence
during the thirty years, makes him go into Egypt, and return in an
unlimited time. Luke, who digested his memoirs after Matthew, perceiving
that the abode in Egypt cast a suspicion of magic on the miracles of
Jesus, makes him remain in Galilee, going and coming every year to
Jerusalem; and making him appear, at the age of twelve, in the capital,
in the midst of the doctors, and debating with them. But Mark and John,
profiting by the criticism which these different arrangements had
experienced, make the messiah drop as it were from the clouds, and put
him instantly to labor at the great work of man's salvation.
It is thus that, on combining and comparing the several relations, we
are enabled to discover the true system of the Gospels, in which,
without adopting any alterations, we shall find materials for composing
the life of Jesus by merely reducing the marvellous to its proper value.