it all in her heart - its marvellous details could not have been told with greater simplicity,
nor yet with more exquisitely delicate grace.1 On the other hand, the Prologue to the first
Gospel, while omitting these, records other incidents of the infancy of the Saviour. The
plan of these narratives, or the sources whence they may originally have been derived,
may account for the omissions in either case. At first sight it may seem strange, that the
cosmopolitan Gospel by St. Luke should have described what took place in the Temple,
and the homage of the Jews, while the Gospel by St. Matthew, which was primarily
intended for Hebrews, records only the homage of the Gentiles, and the circumstances
which led to the flight into Egypt. But of such seeming contrasts there are not a few in the
Gospel- history - discords, which soon resolve themselves into glorious harmony.
1. It is scarcely necessary to point out, how evidential this is of the truthfulness of the
Gospel-narrative. In this respect also the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, with their gross
and often repulsive legendary adornments, form a striking contrast. I have purposely
abstained from reproducing any of these narratives, partly because previous writers have
done so, and partly because the only object served by repeating, what must so deeply
shock the Christian mind, would be to point the contrast between the canonical and the
Apocryphal Gospels. But this can, I think, be as well done by a single sentence, as by
pages of quotations.
The story of the homage to the Infant Saviour by the Magi is told by St. Matt hew, in
language of which the brevity constitutes the chief difficulty. Even their designation is
not free from ambiguity. The term Magi is used in the LXX., by Philo, Josephus, and by
profane writers, alike in an evil and, so to speak, in a good sense2 - in the former case as
implying the practice of magical arts;3 in the latter, as referring to the those Eastern
(especially Chaldee) priest-sages, whose researches, in great measure as yet mysterious
and unknown to us, seem to have embraced much deep knowledge, though not untinged
with superstition. It is to these latter, that the Magi spoken of by St. Matthew must have
belonged. Their number - to which, however, no importance attaches - cannot be
ascertained.4 Various suggestions have been made as to the co untry of 'the East,' whence
they came. At the period in question the sacerdotal caste of the Medes and Persians was
dispersed over various parts of the East,5 and the presence in those lands of a large Jewish
diaspora, through which they might, and probably would, gain knowledge of the great
hope of Israel,6 is sufficiently attested by Jewish history. The oldest opinion traces the
Magi - though partially on insufficient grounds7 - to Arabia. And there is this in favor of
it, that not only the closest intercourse existed between Palestine and Arabia, but that
from about 120 b.c. to the sixth century of our era, the kings of Yemen professed the
Jewish faith.8 For if, on the one hand, it seems unlikely, that Eastern Magi would
spontaneously connect a celestial phenomenon with the birth of a Jewish king, evidence
will, on the other hand, be presented to connect the meaning attached to the appearance
of 'the star' at that particular time with Jewish expectancy of the Messiah. But we are
anticipating.
2. The evidence on this point is furnished by J. G. Müller in Herzog's Real-Enc., vol. viii.
p. 682. The whole subject of the visit of the Magi is treated with the greatest ability and
learning (as against Strauss) by Dr. Mill ('On the Mythical Interpretation of the Go spels,'
part ii. pp. 275 &c.).
3. So also in Acts viii. 9; xiii. 6, 8.