Outlines of New Testament History [1898]

[Stone]

OUTLINES OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

BY REV. FRANCIS E. GIGOT, D.D., Mooney Professor of the Sacred Scriptures in St. Joseph’s Seminary Dunwoodie, New York.

SECOND AND REVISED EDITION

NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO. BENZIGER BROTHERS, PRINTERS TO THE PUBLISHERS OF HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE

Nihil Obstat. J. B. HOGAN, S.S., D.D., Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur. † MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York. NEW YORK, July 20, 1898.

1898, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS.

PREFACE
THE present is a companion volume to the “Outlines of Jewish History” published some months ago. It deals with the historical data supplied by the inspired writings of the New Testament, in exactly the same manner as the preceding work did with the various events recorded in the sacred books of the Old Testament. In both volumes the writer has pursued the same purpose and followed the same methods.

Both works have been prepared for the special use of theological students, not, however, without the hope that they may prove serviceable to a much larger number of readers, such as teachers of Bible history in Sunday-schools, colleges, academies, and the like. In neither volume has it been the aim of the writer to supply a substitute for the Bible itself, but rather a help towards a more careful perusal of the inspired record. With this purpose in view, he has set forth such results of modern investigation as may render the sacred narrative more intelligible and attractive. Many of the difficulties which are daily being raised on historical grounds are also touched upon, and the biblical student is supplied with constant references to further sources of information.

Like the historical writings of the New Testament, the present volume contains two distinct, though very closely connected parts. The first part, gathered from the four narratives of our canonical gospels, describes the life and times of Our Lord; the second, based mainly on the book of the Acts, presents a brief sketch of the labors of Peter, Paul, James, and John, the leading apostles of Christ. The first part, under the title of “The Gospel History,” takes up the sacred narrative at the point where it was left in the “Outlines of Jewish History,” and deals with the three-and-thirty years of Our Lord’s mortal life; the second, entitled “The Apostolic History,” narrates the principal events connected with the planting and early spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire down to the year 98 A.D.

As an additional help to the student, two maps—one of Palestine in the Time of Our Lord, the other of the Roman Empire in the Apostolic Times—have been especially prepared, and will be found at the end of the volume, together with a Chronological Table established on the now commonly admitted fact that the birth of Our Lord took place some years before what is called the Christian era.

July 16, 1898.

[Stone]

PART FIRST - THE GOSPEL HISTORY OR THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CHRIST
FIRST PERIOD - BEFORE OUR LORD’S PUBLIC MINISTRY

CHAPTER I. GEOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST

I.  VARIOUS NAMES: Palestine: the most common origin.

II. SITE AND SIZE:

1. Site: Latitude and Longitude.—Boundaries.—Admirable situation.

2. Size: Length.—Breadth.—Total area.

III. GENERAL ASPECT AND DIVISIONS

IV. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF

1. Eastern Palestine:

    The high table-land beyond Jordan.

    Rivers and mountains.

2. Western Palestine:

    Three long Parallel Tracts:

    Sea-coast.

    The hilly country.

    The Jordan valley.

    Mountains (begin in the south and proceed northward).

    Lowlands (three principal).

    Rivers: Only one; streams or torrents besides.

    Lakes.


1. Various Names. Palestine, the scene of Gospel history, has in different ages been designated by the following names: (1) the land of Chanaan; (2) the land of Promise; (3) the land of Israel; (4) the land of Juda or Judæa; (5) the Holy Land; (6) Palestine. This last, by far the most common name, was originally applied by the Hebrews merely to the strip of maritime plain inhabited by their encroaching neighbors, the Philistines, hence the name; but ultimately it became the usual appellation for the whole country of the Jews.


2. Site and Size. Palestine lies between the 31° and 33° 20′ of north latitude, and between the 34° 20′ and 36° 20′ of east longitude. In the time of Christ it was limited on the west by Phenicia and the Great or Mediterranean Sea; on the south by the Brook of Egypt, the Negeb, the south end of the Dead Sea, and the Arnon river; on the east by Arabia; on the north by Anti-Lebanon, Lebanon, and Phenicia. Its situation in the temperate zone, in the centre of the ancient world, has often been admired: it combined, with a sufficient isolation from heathen influences, a position well suited to the preservation and spread of the true religion among mankind.

Like many regions which have played a great part in the world’s history, Palestine is a very small country. Its average length is about 150 miles, and its average breadth west of the Jordan a little more than 40 miles, east of the Jordan a little less than 40 miles. The total area between the Jordan and the Great Sea is about 6600 square miles; the portion east of the Jordan has an area of about 5000 or perhaps 6000 square miles,—making the whole area of Palestine 12,000 or 13,000 square miles, or about equal to the two States of Massachusetts and Connecticut together.


3. General Aspect and Divisions. A single glance at a physical map of the Holy Land is quite sufficient to make us realize that its general aspect is that of a mountainous country. It owes this hilly appearance to the great Lebanon range, whose eastern branch (the Anti-Lebanon) is prolonged through Palestine by two distinct chains of mountains, the one on the west side, with the exception of one broad depression (the plain of Esdrælon), extending as far as the desert of Sinai, the other, on the east of the Jordan, reaching as far as the mountains of Arabia Petræa. To the west of each one of its mountain-chains Palestine has a large plain, namely, the valley of the Jordan and the sea-coast, so that the Holy Land is naturally divided into four parallel tracts extending north and south. Three of these parallel tracts are almost entirely situated to the west of the Jordan and are usually designated under the name of Western Palestine, while the track altogether east of the Jordan is known as Eastern Palestine or the Transjordanic region.

In the time of Christ Eastern Palestine comprised several great tracts of country, the exact limits of which cannot be defined at the present day. These regions were (1) Peræa Proper, which lay chiefly between the rivers Arnon and Jabbok; (2) Galaaditis (Galaad); (3) Batanea (Basan); (4) Gaulanitis (Golan); (5) Ituræa; (6) Trachonitis; (7) Abilene; (8) and finally, the Decapolis, which lay partly west of the Jordan.

The country west of the Jordan included only three great regions, viz., Judæa, Samaria, and Galilee. Of these regions Judæa was the most famous. It extended along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea almost as far north as Mount Carmel, but on the northeast its limit did not extend quite as far as Sichem. Its southern part formed a portion of Idumæa, and it extended westward from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean. It was about 40 miles wide, and was divided into eleven districts whose metropolis was Jerusalem. North of Judæa lay Samaria, which derived its name from the ancient capital of the kingdom of Israel, and whose central position in Western Palestine gave it great political importance. Finally, north of Samaria was Galilee, 50 miles long by 20 to 25 miles wide. It was divided into Upper or Northern, and Lower or Southern, Galilee.


4. Physical Description of Eastern and Western Palestine. The country beyond Jordan consists in a table-land whose length is about 150 miles from the Anti-Lebanon on the north to the Arnon river on the south, and whose breadth varies from 30 to 80 miles from the edge of the Jordan valley to the edge of the Arabian desert. Its surface, which is tolerably uniform, has an average elevation of about 2000 feet above the level of the sea, and while its western edge is broken by deep ravines running into the valley of the Jordan, its eastern edge melts away into the desert.

Eastern Palestine has three natural divisions, marked by the three rivers which cut it at right angles to the Jordan—the Arnon, the Jabbok, and the Yarmuk. Across the northernmost of these divisions, which extends from Anti-Lebanon to the Yarmuk, “the limestone which forms the basis of the country is covered by volcanic deposits. The stone is basalt, the soil is rich, red loam resting on beds of ash, and there are vast ‘harras’ or eruptions of lava, suddenly cooled and split open into the most tortuous shapes. Down the edge of the Jordan valley and down the border of the desert run rows of extinct volcanoes. The centre of this northern province is a great plain, perhaps 50 miles long by 20 miles broad, scarcely broken by a hill, and almost absolutely without trees. To the west of this, above the Jordan, is the hilly and once well-wooded district of Jaulan (Golan of Scripture); to the east the ‘harras’ and extinct volcanoes already noticed; and in the southeast, the high range of Jebel Hauran. All beyond is desert draining to the Euphrates.”

In the second division of Eastern Palestine, which extends from the Yarmuk to the Jabbok, the volcanic elements almost entirely disappear and the limestone comes into view again. The surface of the country is generally made up of high ridges covered with forests and furnishing rich pasturage; eastward, there are plains covered with luxuriant herbage.

The third division of the Transjordanic region lies between the Jabbok and the Arnon rivers. In it “the ridges and forests alike diminish, till by the north of the Dead Sea, the country assumes the form of an absolutely treeless plateau, in winter bleak, in summer breezy and fragrant. This plateau is broken only by deep, wide, warm valleys like the Arnon, across which it rolls southward; eastward it is separated from the desert by low, rolling hills.”

The country west of the Jordan, or Western Palestine, by far the most important in Gospel history, is naturally divided into three long parallel tracts extending north and south:

(1) Sea-coast. This tract is a plain, the main portion of which extends without a break from the desert below Gaza to the ridge of Mount Carmel. A great part of this plain is flat and naturally fertile. It is intersected by deep gullies which have high earthen banks, and through some of which flow perennial streams. The neighborhood of these streams is marshy, especially towards the north. This main portion of the maritime plain is some 80 miles long and from 100 to 200 feet above the sea, with low cliffs near the Mediterranean; towards the north it is 8 miles, and near Gaza 20 miles, broad. North of the headland of Carmel, which comes within 200 yards of the sea, is the second and narrower portion of the maritime plain extending to Phenicia through the territory of Acre; very near this town the plain has an average width of about 5 miles and is remarkably fertile.

(2) The Hilly Country. Next to the coast-plain eastward comes the high table-land, which gives to Western Palestine the aspect of a hilly region. This tract is about 25 miles wide, and its eastern slopes are extremely steep and rugged. The fertility of this highland region improves gradually as one goes northward.

The southern district below Hebron is mostly made up of barren uplands. Passing a little farther north into Judæa, we find the central and northern parts of the hilly country scarcely more fertile, for the soil is poor and scanty, and springs are very rare; its western and northwestern parts, being reached by sea-breezes, offer a better vegetation, olives abound, and some thickets of pine and laurel are to be noticed; the eastern part is an uninhabitable tract known as the wilderness of Judæa.

Proceeding northward from Judæa to Samaria, the central section of Western Palestine, the country gradually opens and is more inviting. Its rich plains become gradually larger; the valleys are tillable and possess springs; there are orange-groves and orchards; the mountains are still bare of wood; northwest of Nablous, however, the slopes are dotted with fields of corn and tracts of wood.

Proceeding still northward, we reach Galilee, the northernmost division of Western Palestine, where we find the plain of Esdrælon, 15 square miles in extent. The vegetation is more luxuriant here than elsewhere west of the Jordan, and springs are abundant. The hills are richly wooded with oaks, maples, poplars; covered with wild flowers, rich herbage, etc. East of these hills is the rounded mass of Mount Thabor, covered with oaks and contrasting with the bare slopes of the Little Hermon about 4 miles distant to the southwest. North of Thabor is the plain El Buttauf, of a similar nature to that of Esdrælon, but much more elevated.

(3) The Jordan Valley. This valley extends from the base of Mount Hermon to the southern shore of the Dead Sea. Its width varies from half a mile to 5 miles; at some points it is 12 miles broad. At the foot of Mount Hermon this valley is about 1000 feet above the sea; 12 miles below, it is upon the sea-level; 10 miles farther south it is lower by 692 feet; and 65 miles farther, at the Dead Sea, it is 1292 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. The mountains on either side reach a great altitude, some points being 4000 feet high. These heights, combined with the deep depression of the valley, afford a great variety of temperature, and bring into close proximity productions usually found widely apart.

Mountains, Lowlands, Rivers, and Lakes of Western Palestine. Along the coast the only mountain of importance is the ridge of Carmel, the highest point of which is about 1750 feet. In the hilly region, the best-known points of elevation are: Hebron, 3000 feet; Mount Olivet, 2600 feet; Mounts Hebal and Garizim, 3000 feet; Little Hermon and Thabor, 1900 feet.

The three principal lowlands are: (1) the maritime plain subdivided into Philistia, the plain of Saron, and the plain of Acre; (2) the plain of Esdrælon; (3) the valley of the Jordan.

The most important river of Palestine is the Jordan. At the junction of its three principal sources it is 45 feet wide and flows in a channel from 10 to 20 feet below the level of the plain. It traverses successively the lakes of Merom and Genesareth, and empties itself into the Dead Sea after an actual course of 260 miles, although the distance between its source and the Dead Sea is not more than 136 miles in a straight line. Its width varies from 45 to 185 feet, and its depth from 3 to 12 feet.

Three things are chiefly noticeable in connection with this river, namely: (1) its enormous fall of nearly 3000 feet; (2) its endless windings; (3) the absence of towns on its banks. The other streams of Western Palestine worthy of mention are the Leontes, the Belus, the Cison, and the Zerka.

The three principal lakes are the lake of Merom, the lake of Genesareth, and the Dead Sea.

[Stone]

PART FIRST - THE GOSPEL HISTORY OR THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CHRIST
FIRST PERIOD - BEFORE OUR LORD’S PUBLIC MINISTRY

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER II

I. HEROD, KING OF JUDÆA.

  1. Origin and Early Life.
  2. Accession to the Jewish Throne.
  3. Consolidation of his Power.

II. PUBLIC WORKS IN

  1. Jerusalem: Theatre; Palace; Temple.
  2. Palestine and Foreign Countries.

III. SOCIAL LIFE IN JERUSALEM.

  1. The Court and the Upper Classes.
  2. The People and their Hatred of Herod.

IV. RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF THE JEWS.

  1. Jerusalem the Religious Centre of the Jewish World.
  2. Heathenism Widespread in Palestine.
  3. The Messianic Expectation.

V. LAST PERIOD OF HEROD’S REIGN.

  1. Domestic Affairs of Herod.
  2. Condition of Palestine at Herod’s Death.



§ 1. Herod, king of Judæa

1. Origin and Early Life. Herod, whose last years of reign mark the beginning of New Testament history, did not, as was claimed by his partisans, descend from one of the noble Jewish families which returned from Babylon, but belonged to the despised children of Edom, whom the valiant John Hyrcanus had formerly conquered and forcibly converted to the Jewish faith. He was the second son of the shrewd Antipater, who during the rule of the weak Machabean prince Hyrcanus II. gradually became the real master of Judæa under the title of procurator conferred upon him by Julius Cæsar, and who profited by this fulness of power to appoint Herod, then only twenty-five years old, to the government of Galilee.

In that province Herod soon displayed the energy which ever characterized him. He crushed a guerrilla warfare, and put to death Ezechias, its leader, and nearly all his associates. This aroused the indignation of the patriots of Jerusalem, and Herod, as professing the Jewish religion, was summoned to appear before the great Sanhedrim for having arrogated to himself the power of life and death. He appeared, but escaped condemnation through the interference of Hyrcanus II., and took refuge near Sextus Cæsar, the president of Syria.

On the murder of Julius Cæsar (B.C. 44), and the possession of Syria by Cassius, Antipater and Herod changed sides, and in return for substantial services Herod was recognized as governor of Cœle-Syria, that is, of the fertile valley between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. When the battle of Philippi (B.C. 41) placed the Roman world in the hands of Antony and Octavius, the former obtained Asia. Once more Herod knew how to gain the new ruler, and he became tetrarch of Judæa, with the promise of the crown if all went well.

2. Accession to the Jewish Throne. Forced the following year, by an irruption of the Parthians, who had espoused the cause of his rival Antigonus (the son of Aristobulus II.), to abandon Jerusalem, Herod first betook himself to Egypt, and then to Rome. There, owing chiefly to the influence of Antony, he was declared king of Judæa by the Roman senate, and, preceded by the consuls and the magistrates, he walked in procession between Antony and Octavius to the capitol, where the usual sacrifices were offered and the decree formally laid up in the archives.

After an absence of barely three months, Herod was again in Palestine, where, at the head of an army, he soon made himself master of Galilee. He next set himself at work to take the Holy City. But before investing it—which he did in the early spring of B.C. 37—he repaired to Samaria to wed the unfortunate Machabean princess, Mariamne, betrothed to him five years before. The uncle of that ill-fated queen was Antigonus, whom Herod now besieged in Jerusalem. After a siege of six months Jerusalem fell, and a fearful scene of carnage ensued. At length Herod, by rich presents, induced the Romans to leave the Holy City, carrying Antigonus with them (June, B.C. 37). Herod, the Idumæan, now ascended the throne of Judæa and inaugurated his long reign of 37 years.

3. Consolidation of His Power. The first part of Herod’s reign (B.C. 37–25) was spent in bloody endeavors to consolidate his power. Antigonus was executed, together with forty-five of his more prominent partisans. The aged Hyrcanus II., who had taken refuge among the Parthians, was induced by the most solemn promises of protection to return to Jerusalem, and was then assassinated (B.C. 30). Aristobulus III., the grandson and successor of Hyrcanus in the priesthood, was drowned at Jericho by the orders of the king, and even Mariamne—the only wife for whom Herod ever bore a real affection—fell a victim to her husband’s blind jealousy. The next victim whom the tyrant suspected of plotting against his throne was Alexandra, his mother-in-law. And when, at length, he discovered, concealed with his brother-in-law, the sons of Babas, distant relatives of the Machabean family, whom he had long sought for in vain, he had them put to death together with their protector. Only then did he feel sure that no Asmonean would endanger his possession of the Jewish throne.

Meanwhile, and also with a view to consolidate his power, Herod neglected nothing to keep up friendly relations with Rome. To please his then all-powerful patron, Antony, he gave up to Cleopatra—who exercised a controlling influence over Antony—a valuable part of his dominions, the fertile district of Jericho. Upon the fall of Antony at Actium (B.C. 31) he succeeded in making a friend of Octavius on the island of Rhodes. Not only did this new patron confirm him in his kingdom, but he greatly enlarged it. When Herod sent his two sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus, to Rome for their education, he received from Octavius a new increase of territory, and afterwards was appointed procurator of the province of Syria, and with such authority that his colleagues in command could take no step without his concurrence.


§ 2. Public Works

1. In Jerusalem. To establish himself still more in the favor of Augustus, Herod imitated him in great works of peace. He erected a theatre within the Holy City, and without the walls an amphitheatre in which he held games in honor of the emperor with horse and chariot races and the bloody fights of gladiators and wild beasts. He not only embellished the old residence of the Asmoneans which stood at the end of the bridge between the southern part of the Temple and the upper city, but built for himself in the upper city a royal palace with wide porticoes, rows of pillars and baths, and for the adornment of which he spared neither marble nor gold. Contiguous to that new palace arose three towers of great size and magnificence to which he gave the names of Hippicus, after one of his friends, Phasælus, after his brother, and Mariamne, after his beloved wife. He restored and enlarged the citadel, which he named Antonia, after his former patron. Finally, the most magnificent of all his buildings in Jerusalem was the Temple, which in its former condition was out of keeping with the beautiful recent structures in the Holy City, and which after its rebuilding by Herod became justly the greatest national glory of the Jews.

2. In Palestine and Foreign Countries. Herod’s love of building naturally extended to other places within his dominions. Samaria, already raised from its ruins by Gabinius, was now reconstructed in a magnificent style, fortified, and adorned with a temple in honor of Augustus; hence its new name of Sebaste (Augusta). Jericho received among other embellishments a theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome. In place of the ancient Capharsaba, Herod founded the city of Antipatris, thus named from his father; the new city of Phasælis arose north of Jericho; to one of the many strongholds which he built in various directions he gave the name of Herodium, and he took care that it should be supplied with rooms splendidly fitted up for his own use; other fortresses, like that of Machœrus, were restored and adorned with royal palaces. No less than twelve years of work were spent in raising a maritime city on the site of Straton’s tower, and which received the name of Cæsarea in honor of the emperor. Its exposed anchorage was slowly transformed into a safe harbor by a strong breakwater, which was carried far out into the Mediterranean, and from the quays which lined its harbor the stately city arose in the form of an amphitheatre. In its centre was a hill, on which Herod built a temple dedicated to Augustus, with two colossal statues, one of Rome, and the other of the emperor.

This munificence of the Jewish monarch was not, however, limited to his own dominions. “For the Rhodians he built at his own cost the Pythian temple. He aided in the construction of most of the public buildings of the city of Nicopolis, which Augustus had founded near Actium. In Antioch he caused colonnades to be erected along both sides of the principal street.… Tyre and Sidon, Byblus and Berytus, Tripolis, Ptolemais and Damascus were also graced with memorials to the glory of Herod’s name. And even as far as Athens and Sparta proofs of his liberality were to be found.”


§ 3. Social Life in Jerusalem

1. The Court and the Upper Classes. In his great desire to please Augustus and appear a liberal and cultured prince, Herod held a court whose splendor and general tone resembled in many ways that of the emperor. Like the Roman ruler, the king of Judæa surrounded himself with men accomplished in Greek literature and art, and many among them were placed in offices of trust or honor. Prominent among them was the historian, Nicholas of Damascus, on whom Herod relied implicitly, and to whom he intrusted all important and difficult diplomatic missions. Another Greek, a certain Ptolemy, was at the head of the royal finances, while other Greeks or half-Greeks acted as tutors or travelling companions to his sons. Foreign mercenaries surrounded his person, and in so far contributed to give to his court a non-Jewish aspect. Again, the personal example of the king, who had himself submitted to receive lessons from Nicholas of Damascus in philosophy, rhetoric, and history, contributed powerfully to make his various officers reach a wider and higher culture than that which had ever been witnessed at the court of the Asmoneans. Unfortunately the Jewish monarch ever remained a barbarian at heart, and his practice of polygamy, together with his suspicious temperament, greatly interfered with the peace and happiness of those immediately connected with him.

Under Herod the upper classes lost much of their hereditary power, and endeavored to make up for it by a life of luxury and enjoyment; yet the high priests continued to form an influential aristocracy.

2. The People and their Hatred of Herod. Amid all his power and glory, Herod himself realized how far he was from enjoying the good-will of his subjects at large. He knew that they murmured at his introduction of foreign and heathen practices, his arbitrary setting up and deposition of the high priests, his prodigal expenditure, and his terrible severity against his opponents. Hence he several times attempted to pacify the people by truly generous and liberal deeds; but their gratitude did not last long, and time and again serious conspiracies endangered his life.


§ 4. Religious Condition of the Jews

1. Jerusalem the Religious Centre of the Jewish World. In consequence of such popular opposition to his rule, as to that of a hated Idumæan and of a direct representative of the foreign and pagan authority of Rome, Herod carefully refrained from interfering with all that the worship of Jehovah in His own sanctuary required in the eyes of the Jews of Palestine and of the Dispersion. Under him, therefore, as under his predecessors, Jerusalem remained the great metropolis of Judaism. It was at the Holy City that the dispersed Jews regularly congregated in hundreds of thousands, bearing their yearly tribute and anxious to worship the God of their ancestors within the sacred precincts of His Temple. It was in the Holy City that each important section of the Hellenistic Jews had contributed to erect a beautiful synagogue, where those of the same tongue and country and interests could hold meetings of their own, and welcome their fellow-countrymen at the time of the annual festivals. It was in Jerusalem that the great masters of Israel, looked up to by the whole Jewish world, expounded the Law and the traditions of the elders, and from the Holy City that all the parts of the Eastern and Western Dispersion received the teachings of their fathers, the regulations for the feast-days, etc. All this had besides the advantage to secure for the capital of Judæa a commerce, an influence, a prestige which it would never have possessed otherwise, and, as long as he was able to control it by the free appointment or removal of the head of the Jewish hierarchy, Herod had no direct interest to interfere with it.

2. Heathenism Widespread in Palestine. That this conduct of the Jewish king was simply the result of expediency is made plain by his manner of action wherever he felt himself free to encourage heathenism. Not only far away, in Phenicia, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, he made himself the ostentatious patron of everything pagan, rearing temples, theatres, porticoes, gymnasia, etc., but also around the central district of Palestine, and even to some extent within its limits, he started or encouraged idolatry. Gaza, Ascalon, Dor, Cæsarea, Joppe, Samaria, Panias were desecrated by heathen temples, altars, idols, and priests. Even “in the Temple of Jerusalem the Grecian style of architecture was freely adopted. It is true that in the Temple proper Herod could not venture to forsake the traditional forms; but in the building of the inner fore-courts we see the influence of Greek models.” Indeed the king went so far as to place within its sacred precincts a number of trophies, and to display over its main entrance a golden eagle, the symbol of pagan Rome.

3. The Messianic Expectation. It is easy to understand how such unholy changes, forced upon the Jewish patriots and believers by the iron hand of the royal Idumæan, made them long ardently for the reign of the Messias, which their sacred books represented as a future kingdom of righteousness, and which their apocryphal literature—such writings, for instance, as the Sibylline Books, the Book of Enoch, and the Psalter of Solomon—described chiefly under the attractive images of material prosperity. False Messiahs made their appearance at the very moment of Our Lord’s stay in Egypt, and the message of John the Baptist, a little later, gave a new impulse to the general belief that the Messias was at hand. Not only the New Testament is full of references to such an expectation, but even pagan writers bear witness to it.

The full frame of mind of Our Lord’s contemporaries regarding the person and work of the Messias will be gradually unfolded in the course of the present work; yet, even from now, it may be useful to set forth the general belief of the time. According to the popular ideal, the Messias was to be primarily a political leader, a mighty deliverer of His people from the tyranny of its pagan oppressors, and also a restorer of the Jewish institutions in their primitive purity. Issued from David’s race and born in Judæa, He was expected to start a world-wide empire, of which Jerusalem would be the capital, and in which the sons of Abraham would be superior in things temporal as well as spiritual to the rest of the world. To be admitted into this Messianic kingdom it would be sufficient to observe the enactments of the Mosaic law, to which the Messias would Himself be subjected. Finally, a large number of Jews believed that if the nation was once engaged in such an extreme conflict with the Romans as to threaten Jerusalem and its Temple with destruction, the Messias must needs appear.

We shall see later on how Our Lord gradually modified these expectations.


§ 5. Last Period of Herod’s Reign

1. Domestic Affairs of Herod. The last period of Herod’s rule (B.C. 15–4) was disgraced by scenes of bloodshed still more awful than those which darkened its first years, and the history of his domestic affairs is that of a long succession of intrigues and murders. Antipater, his eldest son by his former wife Doris, accused his stepbrothers Alexander and Aristobulus of wishing to avenge upon Herod the death of Mariamne, their mother. Antipater was believed, as well as the court people whom the accuser had won over, and who were constantly inventing new reports. Accusations and reconciliations now alternated with each other; but the calumnies did not cease in the king’s palace till Alexander and Aristobulus were strangled by his order at Sebaste (B.C. 7). A multitude of Pharisees, with some of the courtiers who had conspired against Herod in favor of Pheroras, his brother, were put to death. Upon further inquiry, the death of Pheroras brought to light the whole secret history of years. He had died by taking poison sent by Antipater to dispatch Herod. Even the second Mariamne—the daughter of Simon the high priest—was proved to have been privy to the plot, and her son Philip was, on this account, blotted out of his father’s will (B.C. 5). Antipater, now unmasked, was handed over for trial to the Syrian proprætor. Easily convicted, he was led away in chains. At last the strong nature of Herod gave way under such revelations, a deadly illness seized him, and soon word ran through Jerusalem that he was no more. At once riots took place; but the troops were turned out and the unarmed rioters scattered; many who had been seized were put to death.

Antipater was executed only five days before his father’s demise. Herod died in the seventieth year of his age (750 U.C.).

2. Condition of Palestine at Herod’s Death. At the news of the tyrant’s death frightful anarchy prevailed in Palestine. The popular voice, backed up by tumult and riot, clamored for the redress of grievances, such as the diminution of public burdens, the release of the prisoners with whom Herod had crowded the dungeons, the abandonment of onerous taxes, etc. Very soon, in fact, Archelaus, to whom Herod had left by his last will the government of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, saw himself compelled to send a large body of troops against the rioters, 3000 of whom were slain.

A little later the Roman officials seized upon the treasures of the late king, and insurrection upon insurrection broke out against them. Even the troops of Herod wandered about in bands, plundering as they pleased, and false Messiahs appeared who assumed the diadem and gathered troops of bandits. Finally, a large number of the Jews had been so disgusted with the Herodian rule that they sent 500 of their number to Augustus to ask him not to ratify the will of the deceased monarch, and to suppress the royal authority in Judæa.

[Stone]

CHAPTER III - THE INCARNATION AND NATIVITY

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER III

I. THE INCARNATION.

1. The Annunciation
to Zachary: Conception and circumcision of the precursor.
to Mary: Place; Gabriel’s message; “the Word made Flesh.”

2. The Visitation.
Departure of Mary.
Scene on arrival (the Magnificat).

3. The Marriage of Our Blessed Lady.
Marriage Ceremonies in the East.
St. Joseph’s anxious misgivings removed.
The marriage itself.

   
II. THE NATIVITY.

1. Not in Nazareth.
The enrolment
Nature and extent.
Connection with Cyrinus.
The two genealogies (general features—theories).
Date of birth (approximative).

2. But in Bethlehem.
The town: situation and description.
The inn: An Eastern khan described.
The manger (cave, ox, and ass, etc.).

3. The Adoration of the Shepherds (Luke 2:18–20).



§ 1. The Incarnation

1. The Annunciation. Herod was still living when the birth of the precursor of Christ was foretold (October, 6 B.C.; 748 U.C.). Elizabeth, his mother, and Zachary, his father, both of priestly race, after having long prayed for a son, had now lost all hope to see this, their most ardent desire, fulfilled; but their request, we are told by the sacred narrative, was finally granted.

When the days of the ministration of the priestly course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, had come, he repaired to the Temple of Jerusalem to carry out whatever duties might be assigned to him by lot. To burn incense on the golden altar in the Holy Place was the most honorable of the functions of the simple priests, and this office now fell to Zachary. During this ceremony the people waited in the Court of Israel, praying in silence till the priest should reappear; and, as a rule, he never tarried in the Holy Place longer than was absolutely necessary. On that day the people waited long for Zachary, and when he came out he was speechless; hence, all understood that something extraordinary had happened. He had had a vision, which is recorded in St. Luke (1:11–20), and during which he was told by the angel Gabriel that Elizabeth should bear him a son whom he should call John, and who would be the holy precursor of the Messias.

The unbelief of Zachary at the voice of the angel had been punished by a temporary dumbness; and at the end of his week’s service he departed to his own house.

In due time a child was born to Elizabeth, and on the eighth day after his birth he underwent the rite of the circumcision, in which he received the name of John, as foretold by the angel. It was on the day of the circumcision of his son that Zachary recovered his power of speech, and uttered a beautiful canticle known as the “Benedictus,” from its first word in the Latin Vulgate. It is essentially a Messianic hymn, Hebraic in its language and conceptions. In the first part Zachary, speaking as a priest, praises God for the realization of all the Messianic hopes created by the prophets of the Old Testament; in the second part, speaking as a father, he addresses his son as destined to exercise a preparatory ministry to the Lord.

Six months after his appearance to Zachary, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth, a humble village unknown and unnamed in the Old Testament, and hidden away among the hills of Galilee. It is there that, far from their ancestral seat, Joseph and Mary lived, who were both of the tribe of Juda and the house of David; and it is to Mary “a virgin espoused to Joseph,” that the angel was directed. The precise place where he visited her is not indicated in the Gospel; but the Latin tradition, which affirms that he found Mary in a grotto over which stood the house which was ultimately carried by angels into Italy, agrees with the expression used in the inspired record: “And the angel being come in.”|

What follows in the sacred narrative is as simple and unpretentious as a legend of Oriental imagination would have been gorgeous and hyperbolical. The angel appeared probably under the form of a man, and saluted Mary with these remarkable words: “Hail, full of grace,”—a translation objected to by Protestant writers, chiefly because of erroneous dogmatic views,—“the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women.” At these words Mary was troubled; but after bidding her not to fear, Gabriel delivered his wonderful message, which summarized the principal Messianic predictions of the Old Testament, and by means of which Mary easily understood she was to be the mother of the Messias. Whereupon she humbly inquired, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” The angel told her that by His omnipotence, the Lord would make of her the virgin-mother of the Son of God. To this he added a suitable sign: the pregnancy of her cousin Elizabeth. Mary then believed in the infinite power of God, and submitted humbly to His eternal designs in these simple words: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to Thy word.” Then was it also that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” and became for us all a permanent source of grace and the Mediator of the new and eternal Covenant.

2. The Visitation (March–April, 749, 5 B.C.). From St. Luke’s statement (1:39) that “Mary went into the hill country with haste,” it may be inferred that she at once began her journey, even before she informed St. Joseph of the incomparable honor bestowed upon her. She wished to congratulate Elizabeth on her pregnancy revealed by the angel, and unite with her in praising God. It is beyond doubt that Joseph did not accompany Mary on her journey, but it is not unlikely that she was accompanied by some of her friends, or a body of neighbors going up to the Pasch, now near at hand.

She went to the “house of Zachary,” in the hill country of Juda. As the name of the town where Zachary resided is not indicated in the sacred text, several places are mentioned as having possibly given birth to the holy precursor: (1) Hebron, a very ancient city situated in the hill country, and pointed out by a Jewish tradition as St. John’s birthplace; (2) Yuttah, a town about 4 or 5 miles south of Hebron, a priestly town also, but without tradition connecting it with the birth of St. John; (3) Ain Karin, 4 miles west of Jerusalem, which Greek and Latin traditions concur in marking as the home of Zachary.

As the distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem is about 80 miles, if Zachary lived at Hebron, about 20 miles farther south, the whole journey would take up four or five days.

The scene on Mary’s arrival is very beautiful. It bears the impress of the holiest joy: Mary salutes first her cousin Elizabeth, and at once the yet unborn John leaps for joy and is sanctified in the womb of his mother; while Elizabeth herself, filled with enthusiasm, proclaims blessed the mother of her Lord. All this is manifestly the result of the presence of Our Lord, unseen, but inspiring all. Again, there is a great contrast between the excited enthusiasm of Elizabeth, who “cried out with a loud voice,” and Mary’s canticle, which breathes a sentiment of deep and inward repose, in harmony with her more complete and more constant dependence on the Holy Spirit.

The Magnificat is made up of three stanzas, in the first of which Mary praises God for His benefits to her; in the second she praises Him for His judgments over the world; in the third she praises Him for His mercy towards Israel. Commentators justly observe that the expressions of the Magnificat being almost entirely borrowed from the Old Testament poetry, Mary could easily give vent to her feelings of gratitude in the poetical form under which they have come down to us.

3. The Marriage of Our Blessed Lady. The marriage customs of the East have ever differed considerably from those in vogue among the Western nations.

After the selection of the bride, the espousals or betrothal took place, and were formal proceedings undertaken by a friend or legal representative on the part of the bridegroom, and by the parents on the part of the bride. The wedding itself was simply the removal of the bride from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom. But between the betrothal and the wedding an interval might elapse varying from a few days to a full year for virgins. During this period the communications between the bride and bridegroom were conveyed by “the friend of the bridegroom,” and the bride was considered as a wife, so that any unfaithfulness on her part was punishable with death, the husband having, however, the option of putting her away.

It is in the light of these Eastern customs that we should understand the marriage of our blessed Lady, as recorded by St. Matthew.

After an abode of about three months Mary left the house of Zachary to “RETURN TO HER OWN HOUSE.” This last expression seems to indicate that Mary, “betrothed” to St. Joseph, had not yet been taken to him, as we learn in a more explicit manner from the following words of the first gospel: “When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child.”

After Mary’s return to her own house her pregnancy was now so advanced that it was very soon noticed either by her parents or by the friend of the bridegroom: “She was found with child,” i. e., she was recognized as such, and the fact, being ascertained, was made known to Joseph.

Great was the anxiety of Joseph, her husband, at this news, for he was considered as such after the betrothal, and as a “just man,” i.e., a faithful observer of the Law, he felt bound to repudiate Mary. This he might do in two ways. He could either summon her before the law-courts to be judicially condemned and punished,—this course would have “PUBLICLY EXPOSED HER,”—or he could choose a milder course: he could put her away by a bill of divorce written before witnesses, but without assigning the cause of the divorce; and to this latter course he inclined: “being not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.”| While thinking on those things, viz., how to put her away, the angel of the Lord appeared to him and, manifesting the innocence of Mary, directed him to take her unto himself, i.e., to bring her into his housed.

Joseph, obedient to the divine command, took Mary, his wife, unto himself, “and he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son.”


§ 2. The Nativity

1. Christ Not Born in Nazareth. It might naturally have been expected that Mary’s child would have been born in Nazareth, but an enrolment prescribed by Augustus made a distant village the birthplace of Jesus. This enrolment was most likely a registration of persons and property, a census which would serve as basis for future taxation; and, as St. Luke tells us, it extended throughout the whole Roman empire.

Strong objection has been taken to the statement of the Evangelist that a universal census was carried into effect in Judæa before the death of Herod. In point of fact no explicit statement can be found in any contemporary writer concerning the taking of a universal census at this time. But many things make it probable that it was actually taken: (1) from his accession to the empire Augustus was anxious to have a uniform system of taxation applied to the provinces; (2) under him a census was certainly effected in provinces such as Gaul and Spain; (3) it is well established that he commenced, if he did not carry out, a complete geometrical survey of the empire; (4) several Latin writers refer to Augustus’s Breviarium Imperii, i.e., to a little book written out in the hand of the emperor himself, and treating of the number of his soldiers, of the taxes, imposts, etc., of the empire. Under Herod, Judæa was not yet, it is true, a Roman province, but its reduction to that condition sooner or later was already determined, and it is beyond question that if Augustus ever wished to have a census taken in Palestine during the lifetime of Herod, the obsequious king would not attempt to resist.

A still greater difficulty has been found in the statement of St. Luke that this enrolment took place when Cyrinus was governor of Syria, because it seems to conflict with the following data gathered from other sources: Cyrinus filled the governorship of that province some ten years later than this, and then took a census of Judæa. The actual governor of Syria at the time of the death of Herod—an event which is usually placed not long after Our Lord’s birth—was not Cyrinus, but Quintilius Varus. Nay, more, Tertullian, in his treatise against Marcion, affirms as a positive fact “that the census which could give official information regarding the family and descent of Christ had been taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus”—that is, by the immediate predecessor of Varus in the governorship of Syria.

It would be a long and tedious work even to enumerate all the theories which have been advanced to show how St. Luke’s statement harmonizes with the data which have just been mentioned, and the accuracy of which cannot well be denied. Suffice it to say (1) that recent investigations have proved that Cyrinus was twice governor of Syria, and (2) that it may be supposed that the census was begun by S. Saturninus, so that Tertullian could speak of it as taken by this officer, and that it was completed by Cyrinus during his first governorship: in this way St. Luke could no less accurately ascribe it to the latter.

In carrying out the imperial edict Herod was careful not to override the national customs of the Jews, according to which they should be enrolled at the place with which they were connected by the ties of tribe or family. This brought Joseph into Judæa, to the city of David, for, as we learn in detail from the two genealogies of Our Lord, Joseph was of the house and family of David.

Both genealogies manifestly profess to give the human pedigree of Our Lord, and yet they present several important differences. St. Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, begins with Abraham; St. Luke, writing for Gentile Christians, goes back to Adam, the father of all men. In St. Matthew the genealogies are introduced by the word “begot”; in St. Luke, by the genitive with the ellipsis of the word “son.” St. Luke gives twenty-one names between David and Zorobabel, whilst St. Matthew gives only fifteen, and all the names, except that of Salathiel, are different. Again, St. Luke gives seventeen generations between Zorobabel and Joseph, whilst St. Matthew gives only nine, and all the names are different. Finally, while St. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, St. Luke calls him the son of Heli.

Two principal theories deserve notice in connection with Our Lord’s genealogies. The first maintains that St. Luke gives the genealogy of our blessed Lady, while St. Matthew gives that of St. Joseph. This solution would indeed do away with all the differences mentioned above; unfortunately it finds no basis in tradition, and seems opposed to the natural meaning of St. Luke (3:23). The second theory considers both genealogies as the genealogies of St. Joseph; but while St. Matthew shows that Our Lord is the son of David by legal succession, St. Luke shows that He is such by natural succession. In this latter view both genealogies should also be considered as genealogies of Mary, inasmuch as, Mary being either the niece or the first cousin of Joseph, the ancestors of Joseph—both legal and natural—are also her ancestors.

Whatever may be thought of these opinions the Davidic descent of Christ had been predicted as one of the essential marks of His Messiahship, and its realization in Our Lord’s person is put beyond question by the testimony of the New Testament writers and of tradition.

It is at the end of the journey of Joseph to the seat of his ancestors that Mary—who had accompanied him, because doubtless at this particular time she was unwilling to be left alone at Nazareth—gave birth to Jesus, “her first-born Son.” This leads us to speak of the exact date of Our Lord’s birth.

The precise YEAR in which Christ was born is still a matter of discussion among scholars. They agree generally that, when in the 6th century our received chronology was framed, an error—which has hitherto remained uncorrected—was made in the calculation of the year of Our Lord’s birth: but they are at variance in their estimate of the extent of this error. The most common view among them is that the date of Our Lord’s birth was five years earlier than is represented in our common chronology (749 instead of 753 U.C.); and we may remark that this view harmonizes well with our data regarding both the latest and the earliest year at which the birth of Christ can be put.

The latest year to which Our Lord’s birth can be assigned would seem to be the year 750 U.C.; for on the one hand, St. Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, and not long before his death; and on the other hand, Josephus relates facts which point to the conclusion that the death of the Jewish king took place between the 13th of March and the 4th of April, 750.

The earliest year at which Our Lord’s birth can be put would seem to be 749 U.C.; for (1) at His baptism a few months before the Pasch of 780 U.C., Jesus was “about” thirty years of age, and the word “about,” under St. Luke’s pen, hardly allows us to admit that Christ was then one full year more or less than thirty; (2) the universal enrolment which was carried out in Judæa, and occasioned Our Lord’s birth in Bethlehem, must be put as near as possible to the beginning of the administration of Cyrinus, and Cyrinus was governor from the autumn of 750 to 753 U.C.

Thus, then, the choice remains possible between the latter part of 749 and the beginning of 750 U.C.; the probabilities are in favor of 749 U.C., or five years before the Christian vulgar era.

The month in which Our Lord was born may be determined in the following manner: From St. Luke| we gather that the conception of John the Baptist took place in either the month of April or of October, and counting onwards fifteen months—for six months intervened between the annunciation to Zachary and that to Mary, and nine months between this latter event and the birth of Jesus—we reach June and December, in one or other of which Christ’s birth is to be placed. Now when we bear in mind that in the night Our Lord was born the shepherds tended their flocks, we feel that the month of June cannot be thought of, because in this month the fields are absolutely parched around Bethlehem; in the month of December, on the contrary, the earth is clothed with rich verdure, so that this is most likely the month in which Jesus was born. In fact, an early tradition of the Church designates this month as the time of Our Lord’s birth.

The day itself on which Christ was born is believed to have been the 25th of December, through an immemorial tradition of the Western Church.

2. Birth of Christ in Bethlehem. It was, then, on this memorable day (25th of December, 749 U.C.), that the Incarnate Word of God was born in Bethlehem, the little city of David, according to the prophecy of Micheas (5:2).

The town, as it now stands, is situated about 5 miles south of Jerusalem, on a narrow ridge running pretty nearly east to west. The slopes of the ridge are in many parts covered by terraced gardens, shaded by rows of olives, with figs and vines. On the top of the hill lies the village in a kind of irregular triangle, at about 150 yards from the apex of which is the noble basilica of Justinian, now surrounded by three convents: Greek, Latin, and Armenian. The houses have flat roofs, and the streets are narrow and crooked; the population is about 8000 souls.

Joseph and Mary reached Bethlehem by the northwest, and on their arrival they failed to find accommodation in the inn, crowded by earlier comers. Then, as now, an Eastern inn was simply an enclosed space surrounded by open recesses, of which the paved floor is raised above the ground. In the centre there is the courtyard and water for the cattle; behind is found the stable, which in that region consists sometimes of a cave of limestone; and when no place can be had in the inn, travellers must be satisfied with a corner in the courtyard or else in the stable. So was it with Joseph and Mary when they reached the inn of Bethlehem, for the manger spoken of by St. Luke suggests that they either withdrew to the stable of the inn itself, or to some neighboring cave used at the time for the purpose of a stable. The cave, now shown as the Grotto of the Nativity, is southeast from the town and covered by the Latin convent. It has been modified through ages, and is now 38 feet long by 11 wide, and 9 feet high. A silver star in a marble slab at the eastern end marks the precise spot where Our Lord was born. Here is the inscription: Hic de virgine Maria, Jesus Christus natus est. Fine silver lamps are always burning around. The manger was taken to Rome in 1486 by Pope Sixtus V., but a marble one has taken its place.

The tradition, however ancient, which speaks of an ass and an ox as standing over the crib, is probably without sufficient grounds.

3. The Adoration of the Shepherds. The first to worship the new-born Saviour were humble shepherds who, on the night of Our Lord’s birth, tended their flocks in the fields, or on the eastern hills near Bethlehem. A brilliant light suddenly dazzled their eyes, and an angelic voice broke upon their ears. Bidding them not to fear, it announced the birth of the Lord Christ, and gave them a sign whereby they would find Him in the city of David. Instantly a heavenly choir chanted the praises of God, saying:

Glory to God in the highest,

On earth peace,

Good will towards men!

Obedient to the heavenly message, the shepherds hastened to make proof of the mysterious sign and found the Babe in the manger.

Having offered their homage to the divine Infant, they withdrew praising the God of Israel and proclaiming all that they had seen and heard.

[Stone]

CHAPTER IV - THE EARLY INFANCY
SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER IV

I. THE EIGHTH DAY AFTER THE NATIVITY

1. Circumcision and Naming of Our Lord.


II. THE FORTIETH DAY AFTER THE NATIVITY

1. The Two Ceremonies:
Purification of Mary Described.
Presentation of Jesus

2. The Two Meetings:
Simeon: The personage.
Canticle and words to Mary.
Anna the prophetess.
Historical Conclusion of St. Luke 2:39.


III. THE EPIPHANY

1. Adoration of the Magi:
1. Time of arrival of the Magi.
2. Country they came from:
Arabia?
Chaldæa?
Persia?
3. Their quality, number, and names.
4. The star (conjectures—how a sign to the Magi?).

2. Massacre of the Holy Innocents:
An historical fact.
Number of children murdered.

3. Flight into Egypt:
The road followed; the distance.
Place and length of sojourn.



§ 1. The Eighth Day after the Nativity

1. Circumcision and Naming of Our Lord. Born under the Law, our divine Lord willed to comply faithfully with its various prescriptions. Among the many rites it enjoined was the religious ceremony of the circumcision which every male child in Israel had to undergo as a sign of its incorporation into the chosen people of God. The rite was to be performed exactly on the eighth day after the birth of the child, even though it were a Sabbath day. On the eighth day, then, after His birth, Our Lord received in His sacred flesh the bloody incision, the spiritual import of which was death to sin.|

From the brief notice which St. Luke gives to Our Lord’s circumcision it may be inferred that everything took place according to the ceremonial with which it had gradually come to be surrounded; in presence of ten witnesses, the father, or some other member of the family, made the bloody incision and then pronounced the accustomed blessings.

The place where the ceremony was carried out is not mentioned in the Gospel, but it was most likely either the inn of Bethlehem, or the house where the Magi found Our Lord later on, and in which St. Joseph had provided accommodation as soon as possible for Jesus and Mary.

Together with the circumcision, Our Lord publicly received the name which had been destined for Him by God, the sacred name Jesus. This name corresponds to the Josue of the Old Testament, and means “JEHOVAH’S SALVATION”: it was given to Our Lord to indicate “that He should save His people from their sins.” The name of Jesus is the personal name of Our Lord, and that of Christ is added to it to identify Him with the expected Messias. It must be noticed that others besides Our Lord have borne the name of Jesus.


§ 2. The Fortieth Day after the Nativity

1. The Two Ceremonies of that Day Described. In connection with the birth of a male child, the Jewish Law required that the mother should remain forty days separated from holy things, and that at the end of this period she should appear at the Temple with the sacrifice of a yearling lamb for a burnt-offering, and a turtle dove or a young pigeon for a sin-offering. Those who could not afford to bring a lamb were allowed to offer a turtle dove or a pigeon as a substitute; and it is an evidence of the humble station of Mary that she brought two turtle doves—the offering which was permitted to the poor.

To comply with these requirements of the Law, Mary started for the Temple early on the fortieth day. She had to appear in the Court of the Women as soon as the morning incense had been offered. There her two turtle doves, bought either from the Temple officer, or from the merchants who had changed the Outer Court into a noisy bazaar, would be taken from her by the Levites into the Court of the Priests to be burned on the altar. After a time, a priest would come with some of the blood, and having sprinkled her with it, would pronounce her clean.

The second ceremony to be gone through on the fortieth day, was prescribed by the Jewish Law in connection with the birth of a first-born son. In order to keep alive the remembrance that God had delivered the Hebrews from Egypt by the death of the Egyptian first-born, the Law required that every first-born male should be sacred to Jehovah, and after subsequent modifications it finally prescribed that all the first-born should be presented before the Lord, as a symbolical act of surrender for His service, but they could be redeemed for five shekels (about $2.85), from the service of the tabernacle.

On the prescribed day, Joseph and Mary were in the Temple to present Jesus to God and redeem Him from the service of the altar. Joseph declared formally to the priest that Jesus was his first-born Son, whom he offered to him as to God’s representative. Upon being asked which he preferred, either to give up his first-born or to redeem Him, he answered that he wished to redeem Him, and handed the money to the priest with a prayer. The priest then proclaimed the redemption of the child, and concluded the ceremony with a prayer.

2. The Two Meetings on the Fortieth Day. While Joseph and Mary were still before the gate of the Court of the Israelites, a man named Simeon entered this same Court by the Nicanor gate. Traditions represent him as an aged man, and this is naturally suggested by his words, as recorded in St. Luke (2:29 sq.). Some attempts have been made to identify him with Rabban Simeon, the son of the great Hillel, and father of Gamaliel, who was afterwards president of the Sanhedrim.

The Gospel narrative describes him as a just and devout man in close union with God, whose mind was filled with an earnest longing for the Messias, as the “Consolation of Israel.” He had been favored with a divine assurance that he should not die until his desire had been fulfilled. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he came into the Temple and recognized in the holy Child the object of his ardent desires. Taking Him in his arms, he blesses God, and bursts forth into the canticle known in the evening office of the Church, as the “Nunc Dimittis.” Simeon desires no longer to live, for he has seen the Saviour promised by Jehovah to all nations—to the Gentiles as a light, and to the Jews as their glory. While Joseph and Mary were wondering at these words, Simeon blessed them in his transports of joy and love, and with prophetic insight spoke of the future of the Child and His mother.

At that instant, we are told, an aged woman (she was eighty-four years old) of the tribe of Aser, coming in, approached the gate. She had lost her husband after seven years of marriage, and had ever since persevered in her widowhood. Her long life had been spent in deeds of piety, either actually dwelling in the Temple or scarcely leaving it for necessary purposes. She also gave praise to Jehovah, and spoke of the Child to “all that looked for the redemption of Israel.”

St. Luke concludes this section of his Gospel by this statement, that when Joseph and Mary “had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city of Nazareth.” This seems to conflict with what is said in the narrative of St. Matthew, who places the flight into Egypt from Bethlehem and before the departure for Galilee. Several solutions of this difficulty have been proposed. By some it has been supposed that Joseph and Mary went at once to Nazareth to settle their affairs and came back to Bethlehem, their return being followed by the adoration of the Magi and the flight into Egypt. Others hold that they went to Galilee only after their return from Egypt, and that St. Luke fails here, as on other occasions, to mark accurately the sequence of events, either because he was not concerned about it or because he followed simply his sources of information, in which the order of events was not taken into account.


§ 3. The Epiphany

1. The Adoration of the Magi. The holy Child was sought and recognized not only by Jews (the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna), but also by representatives from the Gentile world. These were the Magi, who were seen in Jerusalem inquiring for the birthplace of the King of the Jews. The particular time at which this occurred has ever been a matter of discussion, although an early tradition places the visit of the Magi on the thirteenth day after Our Lord’s birth (January 6th), and this date seems to be in harmony with St. Matthew who apparently connects the adoration of the Magi directly with the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

It seems, however, impossible to place this event before the Purification in Jerusalem on the fortieth day, for Joseph, who left Bethlehem immediately after the departure of the Magi, remained in Egypt “till after the death of Herod,” that is, several months, and then withdrew to Galilee without coming to the Holy City.

The time at which the Wise Men arrived at Bethlehem may therefore be determined with considerable accuracy: they came after, and most likely only a few days after, the Purification. But the country from which they came cannot be indicated with the same amount of probability.

The Gospel tells us that the Magi came “FROM THE EAST,” a general expression which includes all the nations east of Jerusalem, even Arabia and Persia. Three countries in particular have been suggested by commentators: (1) Arabia, because the gifts offered by the Magi are native to this country, and also because of the prediction in Psalm 71:10, 15, “The kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts.… To him shall be given of the gold of Arabia.” But the gifts offered were common throughout the East, and Arabia is perhaps too far south; (2) Chaldæa, because more east than Arabia, and a great seat of astrology; (3) and with greater probability, Persia, because of the historical association of the word “Magi” with a priestly Persian caste, and also because early pictures in the catacombs represent the Magi wearing the Persian dress.

The name of Magi originally belonged to a high sacerdotal caste among the Persians and Medes. They formed the king’s privy council, and cultivated astrology, medicine, and occult natural sciences. During the time of the Chaldæan dynasty there also existed an order of Magi at the court of Babylon, of whom Daniel was made the president. Subsequently the name was applied to Eastern astrologers, interpreters of dreams, and even to those sorcerers who made pretension to supernatural knowledge. The whole story of the visit of the Magi leads us to admit that the Wise Men who came to worship Our Lord were not of this last description. That they were astrologers or students of the heavens may be inferred from St. Matthew (2:2), “we have seen His star in the East.” If they came from Persia, their name of Magi—which in Persian means priest—would naturally suggest that they belonged to the priestly caste of that country. They are often spoken of as kings: it is more probable, however, that this quality was ascribed to them on account of Psalm 71:10, and this only in the sixth century.

Early pictures in the catacombs represent three Magi worshipping the infant Jesus. The names of Melchior, Balthasar, and Caspar were given them only at a much later period.

Many conjectures have been made about the star which guided the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Some take it to have been an extraordinary meteor or comet, or a passing star such as has been seen in later times to blaze suddenly forth and rapidly disappear. The great astronomer Kepler calculated that some time before Our Lord’s birth (747 U.C.) there was a remarkable conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign of Pisces, to which in the spring following Mars was added: this conjunction many take as the star of the Magi. Others finally—and with greater probability—consider this star as a purely miraculous sign having the very peculiar motion indicated by St. Matthew (2:9), shedding down its rays in some remarkable way so as to indicate a peculiar spot, and bearing in the Gospel narrative the generic name of “star.”

But whatever the star was, the Wise Men took it as a sign of the birth of the great King of Judæa, the land ruled by that section of the heavens in which it was seen. They may have been helped to this conclusion by the prophecy of Balaam, by the prophecies of Daniel, and by the general expectation which at the time seems to have pervaded the East, that a king should arise in Judæa to rule the world; moreover, great multitudes of the Jews were spread through the East, and their Messianic hopes were most likely known to the Magi. However all this may be, the sight of the star and the inner workings of divine grace determined them to undertake a journey to the far-distant land of the Jews.

After a journey of about four months, if they started from Persia, and of about seventy days, if they came from Chaldæa, the Magi arrived at the Jewish capital expecting to obtain there full information about the particular place where the new King of the Jews was born. Their question much more than their dress excited the curiosity of the Holy City.

Scarcely was Herod informed of their question, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” when he trembled for his crown and formed an artful plan to get rid of the royal descendant of David, whom all expected at that time as the Messias. He therefore consulted the chief priests and scribes as to the place where this great monarch should be born, and the Magi regarding the time when the star had appeared. Then he sent the latter away to Bethlehem, the city of David, bidding them return and report the finding of the Babe to him, on the pretext that he, too, wished to worship Him.

As they went, the star reappeared, and guided them to “the house” where Jesus was. Entering, they fell down before the Babe and presented their gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh; after which, in compliance with a divine warning, they left for their own country without coming back to Jerusalem.

2. The Massacre of the Holy Innocents. The departure of the Magi from Bethlehem was soon reported to Herod, for this village is but a few miles distant from the Holy City. In a frenzy of passion the aged tyrant gave orders for the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem and its neighborhood “from two years old and under.” This fact is not recorded by Josephus, it is true; but his silence may be accounted for in various ways. Neither is it mentioned by heathen writers; but they knew little about Jewish internal history. At any rate, the order to slaughter the Holy Innocents is in full accordance with the historical character of Herod as we described it in Chapter II.

Herod’s edict extended to “Bethlehem and its neighborhood”; its victims were to be children “of two years old and under.” This latter expression indicates that on the one hand two years was the extreme limit beyond which the tyrant did not think it necessary to go, and that on the other hand he did not know what exact relation the time of the appearance of the star had to the birth of Jesus.

The number of children cannot have been large: perhaps fifty were slain; some writers even conjecture that the number did not exceed ten or fifteen.

3. The Flight into Egypt. Upon the departure of the Magi, St. Joseph, warned from heaven, fled into Egypt with the mother and the divine Infant, so that the cruelty of Herod missed its mark.

The route followed by the Holy Family was, according to tradition, by way of Hebron, Gaza, and the desert; and as this is the most direct way, it is very likely the true one. A few hours sufficed to place them out of danger; and after about three days’ journey they reached the Egyptian boundary.

Egypt was, at the time, a convenient place of refuge, because easily reached from Judæa, outside of Herod’s power, and full of Jewish residents. The particular place where St. Joseph settled in this foreign land is probably Metaryîeh, near Heliopolis, and about two hours distant from Cairo. There he waited until he received a new message from heaven, i.e., “until the death of Herod.”

[Stone]

LIFE OF CHRIST IN NAZARETH

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER V

I. FIRST YEARS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS:
1. The Return from Egypt:
    At what time?
    By what road?

2. Developments of His Human Life:
    Physical: developments both real and normal.
    Mental: Apparent: words of St. Luke.
    Real: Protestant views.
          Catholic teaching.

3. Apparition among the Doctors:
    At the age of twelve.
    Appeal of Mary. Response of Jesus.


II. YOUTH AND EARLY MANHOOD OF CHRIST:
1. His Surroundings:
    The Place:
    The province of Galilee described.
    The town of Nazareth.
    The People:
      A mixed population.
      The Jewish element.
    Family and Relatives:
    Parents: St. Joseph disappears.
    “Brothers and Sisters”:
    Not full brothers and sisters.
    Either half brothers and sisters,
    Or only cousins.

2. His Occupations:
    The trade of St. Joseph.
    No special training under any great Rabbi.
    The rest: A matter of conjecture.



§ 1. First Years of the Life of Jesus

1. Our Lord’s Return from Egypt. The date of Our Lord’s return from Egypt is intimately connected with the date of Herod’s death. For on the one hand, the Gospel tells us that St. Joseph remained in Egypt till he received word from God, and on the other hand, there are good grounds to admit that St. Joseph received the divine message very soon after the death of Herod, and that he then did not delay, but rather hastened his return.

Considering how numerous were the Jews in Egypt, how constant their communications with Palestine, how great their hatred of Herod, it is certain that the news of Herod’s death would have soon reached St. Joseph in the ordinary way; but it was first made known to him by the angel of the Lord, so that a very short interval must be admitted between the death of the monarch and the angelic message. That St. Joseph hastened his return upon this divine message is implied in the fact that he did not know that Archelaus was Herod’s successor till he reached the Holy Land. Now, as is very probable, Herod died in April, 750 U. C., so that Our Lord’s return is most likely to be placed in this same year, after about two months of sojourn in Egypt.

The intention of Joseph was to settle down in Bethlehem as the proper place in which to rear the Son of David, near Jerusalem, from which the Messias was expected to extend His rule over the world. He therefore started by the great caravan road which connects Egypt with Damascus. This road passes by Gaza and Ramleh; and it is probably in this last-named town—which is connected by a branch road with Jerusalem—that Joseph, in obedience to a new divine message, gave up his purpose to reside in Bethlehem, and withdrew into Galilee. To reach this province, now under the rule of Herod Antipas, he had only to pursue his way on the caravan road, first northward through the plain of Saron, and next eastward across the mountains, into the plain of Esdrælon. A little north of the plain of Esdrælon lies the upland town of Nazareth, in which Joseph took up his abode again, and in which “THE CHILD GREW AND WAXED STRONG.”

2. Developments of Our Lord’s Human Life. The words of St. Luke, just quoted, point to what all grant to have been the real condition of Our Lord’s physical life, viz., a condition of natural development. After its miraculous conception in the virginal womb of Mary, Our Lord’s body was subject to the ordinary laws of growth: from helpless infancy it passed through the stage of childhood, and the natural increase in strength and age,| into the full vigor of man’s estate. The physical developments of Christ’s human life were then both real and normal.

As to the developments of His mental life, they are the object of considerable difficulty. When St. Luke writes (2:52) “AND JESUS INCREASED IN WISDOM AND AGE,” it is plain that the Evangelist refers to such an intellectual growth of Our Lord as appeared to His contemporaries no less real than His actual increase in years and bodily strength. The difficulty is to know whether such growth was real after the manner in which the mind of a child gradually expands into all manner of knowledge.

Here, recent Protestant writers depart considerably from the teachings of past ages. They admit that the growth undergone by Our Lord’s mind was a strictly human growth, with all its weaknesses and imperfections and its gradual acquisition of positive knowledge. According to them, Jesus did not know from the beginning that He was the true Son of God; and it was only after long years of prayer and reflection that He became absolutely sure of His Messianic calling. Such a conception of Our Lord’s mental life is hardly reconcilable with His divine character, and contradicts not only the constant teachings of ecclesiastical tradition, but also the impression which the Gospel narrative produces upon the mind of an impartial reader, concerning Our Lord’s knowledge during His mortal life.

The common teaching of Catholic theologians is entirely different. They admit that Our Lord’s mind was endowed with a twofold knowledge which was not susceptible of increase, viz.: the beatific vision and an infused knowledge, in virtue of which He was ever “full of wisdom and of truth.” But besides, they hold that His mind acquired an experimental knowledge, the actual development of which depended upon the natural and gradual exercise of His mental powers acting on the data of His senses, and in virtue of which He was truly advancing in wisdom as He increased in age. Such a co-existence of growth in knowledge, with a possession of all its ultimate results, is not without parallel in ordinary human life; the telescope, for instance, may verify a result of which we have been previously informed by a mathematical calculation; and we are all constantly learning by direct observation, things already known to us.

3. Our Lord’s Apparition among the Doctors. At the age of twelve, a Jewish boy began to be instructed in the Law and to be subject to its regulations. Among these stood prominent the obligation to appear before the Lord three times a year, and as Joseph and Mary had no longer to fear the cruelty of Archelaus, who had been banished the year before by Augustus, they took up with them to the Holy City, and for the first time, the Child Jesus.

This was on the occasion of the Paschal feast of the year 761 U.C. [8 A.D.]. It was the greatest of all the Jewish solemnities, lasted seven days, and was attended by countless Jews who came to Jerusalem from every part of the world. When the seven days were over and the various caravans formed of kinsmen and fellow countrymen proceeded on their homeward journey, relatives could easily be separated without feeling any anxiety. Thus it was that Joseph and Mary did not feel any anxiety when they first noticed the absence of Jesus; they simply thought that “He was in the company,” and that they would easily find Him at the end of their first day’s journey home, most likely at Beeroth, about 10 miles north of Jerusalem. Not finding Him, however, “AMONG THEIR KINSFOLK AND ACQUAINTANCE,” they spent the next day in returning to the Holy City and seeking Him there. But it was only on the following day—the third after the separation—that they found Him within the sacred precincts of the Temple.

The precise part of the Temple where Our Lord was sitting with the Jewish doctors cannot be identified with certainty. It was most likely, however, the Hall of Gazith, where the Sanhedrim, together with the scribes, ordinarily assembled. During the Paschal festivities in particular, the eminent Jewish doctors of the time sat surrounded by great throngs eager to be instructed by them. Jesus was among their auditors, and He soon astonished all by His questions and answers.

At the sight of Jesus, Mary could not help addressing to Him a maternal reproach, which was at the same time an appeal to His filial love for Joseph and for her. “Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Behold Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.” To this tender appeal of His mother Jesus made an answer full of mysterious meaning: “How is it that you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about the things that are My Father’s?” Even Joseph and Mary did not realize the full sense of these words, for we are expressly told that “they understood not the word that He spoke unto them.”


§ 2. Youth and Early Manhood of Christ

1. His Surroundings. The return of Jesus to Nazareth was followed by a long period of silent subjection and obscurity, of which the Gospel narrative says nothing, beyond this brief statement: “He (Jesus) went down with them (Joseph and Mary), and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.” But, with our present knowledge of the circumstances of the time and place, it is possible, and may prove interesting, to obtain a distinct idea of Our Lord’s surroundings during the long years of obscurity which preceded, and in some measure extended to, His public ministry.

The province in which Jesus spent no less than thirty years of His mortal life is Galilee, the northernmost of the three parts of Palestine, west of the Jordan. It lay almost wholly inland, and was divided into Upper and Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee comprised the mountain range, a prolongation of Anti-Lebanon, which lay between Phenicia and the upper Jordan. As the town of Capharnaum was in Upper Galilee, this district must have touched to the east the lake of Genesareth, while to the west it reached to the coast of Tyre and Sidon. Upper Galilee was more especially the “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Lower Galilee included the great triangular plain of Esdrælon, with its offshoots which run down to the Jordan and the lake of Genesareth, and the whole of the hill country adjoining it on the north, to the foot of the mountain range.

From the writings of Josephus it may be gathered that the Galilee of Our Lord’s time had a rich and well-cultivated soil, that it abounded in fruit and forest trees, and that numerous large towns and populous villages—amounting to no less than 240—thickly studded the face of the country. And there is no doubt that Lower Galilee, in particular, was ever one of the richest and most beautiful sections of the Holy Land.

The town of Nazareth—called Our Lord’s “own country” in the Gospels, lies on the western side of a small valley of Lower Galilee, a little north of the plain of Esdrælon, about 14 miles from the Sea of Galilee and 66 miles north of Jerusalem, in a straight line. It is reached from the plain of Esdrælon by rocky and precipitous paths, and its population in Our Lord’s day is variously estimated from 5000 to 15,000 inhabitants. Its flat-roofed houses are to-day, in general, built of stone, and have a neat and comfortable appearance, but its streets or lanes are narrow and crooked, and after rain are so full of mud and mire as to be almost impassable. Nazareth enjoys a mild atmosphere and climate, and all the fruits of the country—as pomegranates, oranges, figs, olives—ripen early and attain a rare perfection. Its present population is about 7500 souls. At the northeast of the town is the Fountain of the Virgin, whither, it is supposed, Jesus often accompanied Mary when she went to draw water, as the women of Nazareth do in the present day.

The village is surrounded by some fifteen heights, several of which rise to an altitude of 400 or 500 feet. They have rounded tops and present a pleasing aspect, diversified as they are with the foliage of fig trees, wild shrubs, occasional fields of grain, and countless gay flowers. From the top of the hill northwest of Nazareth there is a most remarkable view often described by travellers, and preferred by Porter even to that which is enjoyed from the top of Mount Thabor. Finally, a prevalent tradition indicates as the Mount from the summit of which the inhabitants of Nazareth wished to throw Our Lord, a hill about 2 miles southeast of the town.

If from the country and town we pass to the people in the midst of which Jesus spent His youth and early manhood, we easily notice that it was a mixed population, the various foreign elements of which—Assyrians, Phenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs—had been brought thither by trade, exercise of power, or the natural intermingling of the neighboring populations, as Galilee was the great thoroughfare between Syria and Egypt. The Galilean Jews were fervent worshippers of Jehovah, and crowded to the Holy City at the feasts and to the local synagogues on Sabbath days. Far from admitting new doctrines, they remained extremely faithful to the Law, most likely because of the influence of the Pharisees and doctors of the Jews, who seem to have been settled in every town. Contact with strangers did nor affect their morals, and their courage could not be questioned; and yet they were despised by the Jews of the south, who boasted to live near the Temple, amid a less mixed population, on a holier soil, to possess a greater culture and to speak a purer dialect.

That Nazareth had a worse name among them than any other Galilean town is not proved.

In the home itself at Nazareth we find two persons most dear to Jesus and whom the gospels call His parents; 1. Mary, His true mother, of the race of David, married young to Joseph, and who survived both Joseph and Jesus. 2. Joseph, a descendant of David, working at his trade for his daily bread, the foster-father of Jesus, and who died before Him—a tradition says when Jesus was eighteen years old.

Besides His parents Our Lord had relatives, who lived also in Nazareth, and perhaps under the same roof with Him. They are indeed called in the gospels “HIS BROTHERS” and “HIS SISTERS,” never His cousins or kinsmen; but all grant that this does not necessarily define the degree of relationship which they bore Him, and in fact scholars are still divided respecting this difficult question.

Many Protestant writers think that these relatives were the full brothers and sisters of Jesus, or children both of Joseph and Mary, the mother of the Lord. This view would have the advantage that it takes the words “brothers” and “sisters” in their strictest natural sense; and after having been admitted by ancient heretics, written down by St. Jerome, it has been revived in Germany by Herder, Strauss, etc.; in England by Alford, Edersheim, etc.; and in America by Schaff, Lyman Abbott, Easton, Gould, etc. But it is irreconcilable with the ancient and constant tradition of the Church, which has made the perpetual virginity of Mary an article of Catholic belief. It is also repugnant to the common instinct of Christians, who have ever felt “that the selection of a woman to be the mother of the Lord carries with it as a necessary implication that no other could sustain the same relation to her, and that the selection of a virgin still more necessarily implied that she was to continue to be so.” Even from a lower standpoint this view is hardly compatible with the fact that our dying Saviour intrusted His mother to St. John, if she had other children to take care of her. Finally, while the words “brother,” “sister,” may certainly be understood otherwise than in their strict natural sense, it is significant that nowhere in the gospels are those relatives of Jesus called the children of Mary, the mother of the Lord. It is plain, therefore, that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were not His full brothers and sisters.

When this erroneous view has been set aside two opinions remain, each with its respective amount of probability. The first maintains that these relatives of Our Lord were only His half-brothers and half-sisters, or children of Joseph by a former marriage. This view goes back to the earliest ages of Christianity; it has been admitted by many of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and is in the present day the current notion of the Greek Church. It does not present any unsurmountable difficulty, and has the advantage that it takes the words “brothers,” “sisters,” in a natural sense.

The second opinion takes the words “brothers,” “sisters,” in a broad sense as equivalent to “cousin.” This view was strongly advocated, and, indeed, to all appearance, started, by St. Jerome. Under the influence of this great Doctor it has become the current opinion of the Latin Church. There is no doubt that the words “brother,” “sister,” may be understood as equivalent to “cousin.” Again, if Our Lord had no brother in the natural sense of the term we understand easily why He gave John to Mary as her son. It has also been noticed that Jesus is designated at Nazareth by an appellation usual to the only son of a widow. For these and other such reasons this third opinion remains very probable, although its partisans seem, at times, to rely too much on conjectures to strengthen their position.

2. Our Lord’s Occupations. The life of Jesus in Nazareth was indeed a life of obscurity. Subject to His parents, as all good children are, He was simply known as the “carpenter’s son” and as the “carpenter.” This last expression implies that He had learned and that He actually toiled at the humble trade of His foster-father. We can gather also that He received none of the curious learning of the time, and was subjected to no special training under any great rabbi, such as St. Paul had under Gamaliel: for we are told that “the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?”|

This is all we know for certain about Our Lord’s occupations during His youth and early manhood. Several attempts have been made to fill up the gaps of the sacred narrative and to present a fuller picture of the life of Jesus in Nazareth.

The first of these attempts goes back to the early times of Christianity, when it gave birth to legendary accounts, samples of which have come down to us in the gospel of Thomas and the Arabic gospel of the infancy. No one can peruse these apocryphal gospels without feeling of how little use they must ever remain to complete the picture drawn from the sacred text. They hardly ever record a fact of real importance not already supplied by our canonical gospels, while they abound in wonders which they ascribe to Jesus, and of a character always unlikely, sometimes even childish.

This is also the case, to a large extent, with the descriptions of Our Lord’s life in Nazareth which were drawn during the Middle Ages. They breathe the childlike piety of the time, but also bespeak its great lack of acquaintance with Oriental customs and manners. Only in our century have really scientific efforts been made to retrace in descriptions that would be true to life the youth and early manhood of Christ. Contemporary scholars have availed themselves of all the sources of information at their disposal to describe accurately the manner of life of a young and poor artisan of Galilee in the time of Christ, and they bid us contemplate in the picture thus drawn a faithful image of Our Lord’s life in Nazareth. Like the other young men of His time and country, we are told, Jesus frequented the school of Nazareth and received the ordinary instruction imparted there; attended divine service in the synagogue of that city on the Sabbath and festival days; went up with the Galilean caravans to Jerusalem for the yearly celebration of the Pasch, etc. Of course, as the divine character of Jesus remained absolutely concealed during this period of His life, it is only natural to picture Him to ourselves as conforming to the ordinary ways of the young men of His time and condition. It remains true, however, that we have no positive information about the extent it pleased the Son of God to conform to, or dispense with, the natural conditions of the time, so that many features of His life in Nazareth as described by recent scholars must ever appear an object of more or less plausible conjecture.