ple Is. xi. 1.). For had this been the intention of the Evangelist, he would have quoted a definite, or positive prophetic passage, wherein this expression occurs, which is the case with all his former quotations from the Old Testament. But in that case the formula is λngwe would have been of no use to him, inasmuch as no connection exists between the name and his dwelling in Nazareth. We must therefore be guided in the reading of this passage by the concluding portion of this verse ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. (The reading διὰ τοῦ προφήτου is evidently a mere improvement, yet without any critical authority). The plural indicates that the Evangelist had no isolated quotation in view, but that he wished to adduce a collective quotation; yet the article compels us to suppose that St Matthew had in view all the prophets, or at least a portion of them, whom he presupposed as being known to the reader. According to this, the opinion becomes most probable which leads us to suppose that the Evangelist has here called into account the language used in that country, in which the term Nazarene signifies one that is low, despised. Accordingly, the Evangelist must have had in view such passages as describe the Messiah in his lowliness, as for example, Ps. xxii. Isa. liii. With this view may be connected the etymological allusion to (from ) signifying the despised, which is not at all improbable, if we presuppose that there existed formerly an original Hebrew copy of St Matthew. But it becomes apparent, even from these first chapters, and in a manner by no means to be mistaken, that St Matthew endeavours to represent Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.2 Writing for Jews, his main object was to prove the connection existing between the various phenomena which took place at the birth of Jesus, and the important testimonies of the Old Testament. (On xaλɛîõlas comp. the comm. on St Luke i. 32).

גָזוּר

If, at the conclusion of the first two chapters of St Matthew, we glance at the scruples raised against their authenticity, we shall find that they may be regarded as having no validity in

1 In this manner the learned Nazarene Jewish christians explained to Jerome the quotations. Comp. Hieronymi comm. ad loc. Jes. xi. 1.

2 De Wette is mistaken, who contrary to his other assertions, here supposes ambiguity; first, that regard was had to the town of Nazareth and the sojourn there, and then again, that the name was not left unnoticed.

the present day. For no external proofs can be adduced in support of the opinion that these chapters did not exist in the original, i.e. in the MS. Gospel of St Matthew, since it has been proved that the Gospel za9' 'Eßgaíous contained the history of the infancy of Jesus. (Comp. my Geschichte der Evangelien, p. 73, 76). The Ebionites, it is true, had not the first chapters in their revision of that apocryphal Gospel; but the fact that they had taken them away, proves that they originally existed. (See Epiph. haer. xxx. 13). And with regard to the internal reasons, Gersdorf has proved, in a convincing manner, (Sprachcharakt. p. 38, sqq.) that there exists an affinity between the style of writing in the first chapters and that of the following; although it must be confessed that Fritzsche has refuted several of Gersdorf's remarks (exc. iii. in Matth.) The only thing remaining, then, to afford any pretence for doubting the authenticity of these chapters, is the dogmatico-offensive tenor of the whole. But this is the very thing which is never employed by reasonable critical minds as a ground for so doing, since this objection can be brought forward at most to disprove the authenticity of the history herein narrated, and not against the authenticity of this portion of the Gospel, inasmuch as the Evangelist adopts, in the chapters following, the same fundamental views in which has originated that form of representation prevailing throughout the first chapters. Besides, as regard is had in what follows (comp. iii. 1; iv. 23,) to previous portions, the first chapters clearly manifest themselves as integral parts of the Gospel. The very same remarks apply to the reasons stated for doubting the authenticity of the first chapters of St Luke. (On the literature comp. Kuinoelii Comm. in Luc. vol. ii. p. 232). Here, too, the external reasons are wholly wanting, inasmuch as the character of the Marcionite Gospel testifies not against it, but in favour of it, since Marcion erased, i. e. took away the first chapters which he found contained in the catholic Luke. (Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 7). Of internal reasons, none can be adduced except the wondrous nature of the history narrated in this Gospel, and which perfectly suits the character of the whole. Of the contradictions which seem to prevail between the narratives of St Matthew and St Luke in the Gospel, of the infancy of

1 Comp. the treatise of Joh. Georg Müller, (Trier, 1830,) which contains a defence of the authenticity of these chapters.

Jesus, mention will be made hereafter; but against the authenticity of the first chapters themselves, no objection should be raised which is based upon the view entertained of it by our adversaries, even in case it cannot be proved, inasmuch as our opponents could likewise here only testify against the authenticity of the history narrated.

SECTION II.

ACCOUNT OF ST. LUKE.

(Chapters i. and ii.)

§ 1. PREFACE.

(Luke i. 1-4.)

The four verses with which St Luke opens his work, and which may be regarded as consisting of two parts, (comp. Acts of the Apostles i. 1,) are remarkable in more than one respect. As to the style, we perceive that the peculiar mode of writing of the Evangelist, (which is genuine Greek, as is proved by the first period,) differs much from the Hebraising style so striking in what follows, where St Luke places before his readers documents-it matters little whether they be unchanged or revised-which tradition placed in his hands. St Luke moreover informs us, that there already existed, previous to the composition of his own work, Gospel accounts collected in another manner, the confirmation of which (ȧopáλα, ver. 4,) was nevertheless doubtful. St Luke finally points out the sources from which he derived his information, the principles he laid down in the composition of his work, and the special object he thereby had in view. But the construction of the prooemium or preface suffers from a certain vagueness, which seems the more calculated to leave room for divers interpretations, in proportion as the views of the origin of the Gospels naturally affected them in various ways. For the meaning of the whole passage depends upon the manner in which the beginning of the apodosis is defined. We may begin the apodosis, with καθὼς παρέδοσαν κ. τ. λ. as well as with ἔδοξε καμοί.

a

According to the latter division, the words zadas ragédorav, which are connected with the preceding ἐπειδήπερ πολλοί κ. τ. λ., contain a remark respecting the nature of the earlier Gospel reports above alluded to; for to suppose that this remark only refers to their existence, as though St Luke himself had been unacquainted with these writings, but had only heard of them through the agάdons, is clearly improbable, on account of the very expression, οἱ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται, which necessarily leads to the assumption of a tradition concerning the history of Jesus.' In this case, the opinion of St Luke on the nature of those earlier writings must have been favourable, inasmuch as he ascribes to himself the same sources with them, (καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν;) an assumption which would suit well the hypothesis according to which the oí are said to be shorter revisions, and our Gospels detailed ones of the same original Gospel. Yet, as censure is evidently contained against the λλ in ver. 4, where Luke promises to Theophilus, in his Gospel, an historical certainty for the Gospel-history, which, it would appear, did not exist in the works of the more ancient writers; hence we might be led to suppose that a preference ought to be given to that division of the proposition which begins the apodosis with καθὼς παρέδοσαν κ. τ. λ. In that case the paradosis of the eye-witnesses would refer only to the narrative of St Luke, and his own then would appear as forming a contrast to the more ancient. Yet, here again we are disturbed by the circumstance, that in dože xquoi, grammatically speaking, the conclusion is indicated more positively than in xadas, inasmuch as the term καμοί forms evidently a contrast with the πολλοί; the change, moreover, of us and yú is very striking. Hence it would be no doubt most correct to open the apodosis with ἔδοξε, yet not to join the proposition καθὼς παρέδοσαν κ. τ. λ. to avaráğaclar, so that it might imply a description of the nature of the sources used by the roλλoí, but on the contrary to the

1

Hug (Einl. vol. ii. p. 121, sqq.) renders the words natus magidorav, as they, i.e. the writings of the aλí, were placed in our hands by the eye-witnesses;" this is a mode of viewing which must stand and fall with the opinion of the learned man, viz. that the writings of the woλλoí are the productions of the apostles.

2 Thus Orig. in Luc. hom. i. very correctly, quod ait conati sunt latentem habet accusationem eorum, qui absque gratia spiritus sancti ad scribenda Evangelia prosilierunt.

πράγματα ἐν ἡμῖν πεπληροφορημένα, according to which combination then the following agédooav would form an exact parallel with ἐν ἡμῖν πεπληροφορημένα, and the meaning accordingly would be: After that many have undertaken to draw up a narrative of the events which with us (members of the Christian church) are considered as founded on history, as the eye-witnesses have reported it to us (to me and to all the members of the community); so I, too, have resolved, &c. Accordingly, the events only appear to be satisfactorily warranted by the tradition of the church; but then the nature of the narratives remains undetermined, and becomes moreover of a doubtful character, by the contrast which St Luke forms with the 2207, more especially in ver. 4. This manner of conception agrees best with the views we have endeavoured to display in the Introduction, according to which our four canonical Gospels only contain, in a state of concentration, the apostolical tradition respecting the person, life, and death of Jesus, and that all anterior writings of this kind were of a character more or less apocryphal.

Ver. 1. The πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν διήγησιν ἀνατάξασθαι cannot well be applied to isolated writings on isolated portions of the Gospel-history (which, according to this passage, are called without much propriety Diegesis, i.e. digests), inasmuch as the singular dinynois leads only to the assumption of connected (although more or less detailed) narratives of the whole of the Gospel-history. Nay, the term avaráğastai even leads to the supposition that the λ compiled their writings from smaller reports. But it cannot be ascertained what writings St Luke refers to; since it is highly probable that St Luke was unacquainted with our canonical Gospels (comp. § 3 of the Introduction), so we are left to suppose that the works of the 220 were apocryphal attempts to describe the life of Jesus, but which, for want of historical data, can be characterised no further. As a subject of the writings of the πολλοί, are named the πράγματα ἐν ἡμῖν πεπληρο pognava. As this prooemium must be considered an introduction to the entire work of St Luke (the Acts of the Apostles, in one sense, forming the second part of the Gospel), the idea here expressed embraces a period extending beyond the earthly course of our Lord's life, for it embraces the period of the development of the church up to the time in which St Luke wrote. Yet when we see the Evangelist add soon after a remark to the passage πεπληροφορημένα ἐν ἡμῖν concerning the authenticity of the