him, that their earliest observation of the sidereal phenomenon had taken place two years
before their arrival in Jerusalem.
16. Both Meyer and Weiss have shown, that this was not a meeting of the Sanhedrin, if,
indeed, that body had anything more than a shadowy existence during the reign of Herod.
17. The question propounded by Herod (v. 4), 'where Christ should be born,' is put
neither in the past nor in the future, but in the present tense. In other words, he laid before
them a case - a theological problem, but not a fact, either past or future.
18. St. Matt. ii. 7.
19. v. 16.
The assembled authorities of Israel could only return one answer to the question
submitted by Herod. As shown by the rendering of the Targum Jonathan, the prediction
in Micah v. 2 was at the time universally understood as pointing to Bethlehem, as the
birthplace of the Messiah. That such was the general expectation, appears from the
Talmud,20 where, in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew, Bethlehem is
authoritatively named as Messiah's birthplace. St. Matthew reproduces the prophetic
utterance of Micah, exactly as such quotations were popularly made at that time. It will
be remembered that, Hebrew being a dead language so far as the people were concerned,
the Holy Scriptures were always translated into the popular dialect, the person so doing
being designated Methurgeman (dragoman) or interpreter. These renderings, which at the
time of St. Matthew were not yet allowed to be written down, formed the precedent for, if
not the basis of, our later Targum. In short, at that time each one Targumed for himself,
and these Targumim (as our e xisting one on the Prophets shows) were neither literal
versions,21 nor yet paraphrases, but something between them, a sort of interpreting
translation. That, when Targuming, the New Testament writers should in preference
make use of such a well-known and widely- spread version as the Translation of the LXX.
needs no explanation. That they did not confine themselves to it, but, when it seemed
necessary, literally or Targumically rendered a verse, appears from the actual quotations
in the New Testament. Such Targuming of the Old Testament was entirely in accordance
with the then universal method of setting Holy Scripture before a popular audience. It is
needless to remark, that the New Testament writers would Targum as Christians. These
remarks apply not only to the case under immediate consideration, 22 but generally to the
quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 23
20. Jer. Ber. ii. 4, p. 5 a.
21. In point of fact, the Talmud expressly lays it down, that 'whosoever targums a verse
in its closely literal form [without due regard to its meaning], is a liar.' (Kidd. 49 a; comp.
on the subject Deutsch's 'Literary Remains,' p. 327).
22. St. Matt. ii. 6.
23. The general principle, that St. Matthew rendered Mic. v. 2 targumically, would, it
seems, cover all the differences between his quotation and the Hebrew text. But it may be
worth while, in this instance at least, to examine the differences in detail. Two of them are
trivial, viz., 'Bethlehem, land of Juda,' instead of 'Ephratah;' 'princes' instead of
'thousands,' though St. Matthew may, possibly, have pointed ψπ∋λ≅υ)αβ≅: ('princes'),