(a)Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας – According to Justin Martyr, Bethlehem was distant 35 stadia from Jerusalem (Apol. I. 34. p.65). DuTillet has בעיר יהודה (Bethlehem, a city of Judah). The town was originally called Ephrath (Gen 35:19, Gen 48:7). As there were two Bethlehems, one in the Tribe of Judah, the other in the Tribe of Zebulun (Jos 19:15, Jdg 12:8), Matthew added τῆς Ἰουδαίας to distinguish the city from Bethlehem of Zebulun, a town near Nazareth referred to as Beth Lehem Zoria in the Jerusalem Talmud as it was part of the kingdom of Tyre.(b)ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως – The father of Herod was Antipater, an Idumaean; his mother was an Arabian.(c)μάγοι – This is a word of Babylonian or Persian origin (maguš). But according to Thayer’s Lexicon, the word is of Indo-Germanic origin. Were the Magi Persians? According to Justin Martyr, the Magi were from Arabia.For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his ungodly and sinful character. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 77)The name is given by the Babylonians, Medes, and Persians, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augurs, soothsayers, sorcerers, etc. According to Herodotus, the Magi were one of the tribes of the Medes. They were interpreters of dreams. (Book 1, 101, 107)Δηιόκης μέν νυν τὸ Μηδικὸν ἔθνος συνέστρεψε μοῦνον καὶ τοῦτον ἦρξε· ἔστι δὲ Μήδων τοσάδε γένεα, Βοῦσαι Παρητακηνοὶ Στρούχατες Ἀριζαντοὶ Βούδιοι Μάγοι. γένεα μὲν δὴ Μήδων ἐστὶ τοσάδε. (History of Herodotus, Book 1, 101)ὑπερθέμενος δὲ τῶν Μάγων τοῖσι ὀνειροπόλοισι τὸ ἐνύπνιον, ἐφοβήθη παρ᾽ αὐτῶν αὐτὰ ἕκαστα μαθών. (History of Herodotus, Book 1, 107)(d)μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν παρεγένοντο – According to Edward Burton, ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν may be coupled either with μάγοι (eastern Magi) or with παρεγένοντο (came from the east). Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Epiphanius say they came from Arabia, but Clement of Alexandria and Athanasius, from Persia. The belief that there were three Wise Men called Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthasar probably originated from the offerings in Matt 2:11; and they may have been called kings, from Psalm 72:10 (71:10) :βασιλεῖς θαρσις καὶ αἱ νῆσοι δῶρα προσοίσουσιν βασιλεῖς ἀράβων καὶ σαβα δῶρα προσάξουσινThe kings of Tharsis, and the isles, shall bring presents: the kings of the Arabians and Saba shall offer gifts.(e)Ιεροσολυμα or Ιερουσαλημ? Ιερουσαλημ is the Hebrew form of the name and is used in Luke.(f) In a fragment of the ecclesiastical history composed by HEGESIPPUS, a converted Jew, who flourished A.D. 173, which is preserved by Eusebius², there is an account of the emperor Domitian’s inquiry after the posterity of David, two of whom were brought before him : “for,” adds the bistorian, “he too was afraid of the coming of Christ, as well as Herod.” In this passage there is an explicit reference to the second chapter of Matthew, which plainly shows that this portion of bis Gospel was received by this Hebrew Christian, who used our Greek Gospel. Or, if he used only the Hebrew edition of St. Matthew’s Gospel, it is equally certain that the historical fact alluded to must have been extant in it in the time of Hegesippus.(Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4, p. 423)(g) The external objections to the genuineness of these chapters are of no weight . The chief argument is that they are not contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews as used by the Jewish Christians, and hence it has been inferred that they formed no part of the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Epiphanius, who appears to have regarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or as he calls it, the Gospel of the Ebionites, as the same as the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, though in an incomplete, adulterated, and mutilated form, states that it commenced with the baptism of John : “The beginning of their Gospel was this : It came to pass in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, that John came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river of Jordan” (Matt. iii. 1-7).¹ We have already considered the relation of this Gospel to the Gospel of Matthew. It is not now in existence, so that we cannot verify this statement. But as the majority of Hebrew Christians were Ebionites who called in question the divinity of Christ, it is highly probable that from dogmatic motives they did reject the first two chapters of Matthew, which taught the miraculous conception. Tatian also, in his Diatessaron, omitted the genealogy. But this is no serious objection to the genuineness of these two chapters, since Tatian, although he omitted the genealogy of our Lord as not being essential to his harmony, did not omit the narrative of the birth of Christ, —the miraculous conception, the visit of the Magi, the appearance of the star, and the slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem.(Paton James Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, p. 130)(h) The external testimony in favour of the passage is so strong and convincing, that we do not see how it can be set aside by any objections of a subjective or internal nature. The passage is contained in all Greek manuscripts and in all the ancient versions of the Gospels. It is frequently alluded to and quoted by the early Fathers. Thus, in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (A.D. 115), there is an allusion to the star. “How was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in the heavens above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment.”¹ Justin Martyr (A.D. 180) mentions all the incidents contained in the narrative — the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the massacre of the infants. “Now this King Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said that they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a king had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet : ‘And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah : for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people. Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the child, and presented Him with gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh ; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation, after worshipping the child in Bethlehem . . . . So Herod , when the Magi from Arabia did not return to him, as he had asked them to do, but departed by another way to their own country, according to the commands laid on them ; and when Joseph, with Mary and the child, had gone into Egypt, as he did not know the child whom the Magi’ had gone to worship, ordered the whole of the children then in Bethlehem to b massacred. ”² As we have already stated , the whole passage, with the exception of the genealogy, is contained in the Diatessaron of Tatian (A.D. 160). There are frequent references to it in the writings of Irenæus (A.D. 180) . Thus he refers to the genealogy of our Lord as recorded by Matthew : “Matthew relates His generation as a man : The birth of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham : and also, The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise,”³ And he mentions the visit of the Magi and the appearance of the star : “Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the East, exclaimed : We have seen His star in the East, and are come to worship Him.”⁴ It is needless to pursue the references to the passage further. There is no doubt that it constituted an original portion of the Greek Gospel of Matthew. To affirm, with Norton, that it formed no part of the original Hebrew, but was an insertion into our Greek Gospel by the translator, granting the existence of a Hebrew original, —is a mere assertion, for which the only proof is its omission in the defective Gospel according to the Hebrews. The internal evidence is in favour of the genuineness It forms an appropriate introduction to the Gospel. Thus the beginning of chap. iii. : “And in those days” (Ἐν δε ταϊς ημέραις εκείναις), is, by reason of the conjunction δε and the phrase ημέραις εκείναις, in apparent connection with what precedes. So also the statement, that Jesus leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt in Capernaum (iv. 13), presupposes the previous residence in Nazareth mentioned in the passage (ii . 23). The style and diction of the passage correspond with the rest of the Gospel. The favourite formula of Matthew, when introducing any prophetic statement : “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord through the prophet” (ίνα πληρωθή το ρηθέν υπό του κυρίου δια του προφήτου), occurs, either in full or in an abbreviated form , five times (i. 22, ii. 5, 15 , 17, 23). The Messianic title used by Matthew, the son of David (υιος Δαυειδ), occurs twice (i. 1, 20) . . The favourite term, λεγόμενος, used in announcing the meaning of an epithet applied to the Messiah (Ιησούς ο λεγόμενος Χριστός , 1. 16), or in stating names and surnames ( είς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρετ, ii . 23), is twice employed. The peculiar use of ρηθείς, ρηθέν, occurs four times , whilst of the other Synoptists only Mark has το ρηθεν (Mark xiii. 14).⁵ Of course it may be answered, that these similarities of diction are attributable to the translator in rendering the Hebrew original into Greek.⁶¹ Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. ch. xix.
² Dial. c. Tryph. ch. lxxviii.
³ Irenæus, Contra Hær. ii. 11. 8.
⁴ Ibid. iii . 9. 2
⁵ See Guerick , Isagogik, pp . 240 , 241.⁶ So Meyer : “The unity of the Greek style and expression is to be explained from the unity of the translator.”(Paton James Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 131-133)
