1 ie v/xospeJs oi 1 w ana Luke ' ' I . ' ■ .I ' M ' " ' ' ." .. OSEPH HORNER, M. A. tintt Rtitt ™h y \, ... «r f , « -. ► «f" (* MAR 9 1908 *; Division B52.5^S r THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE A Vindication of Their Agreement and Accuracy as to Certain Dates and Order of Events Especially of The Marginal Chronology The Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar The Case of Cyrenius The Visit of the Magi The Flight into Egypt and Return Notes of time — from the Birth to the Crucifixion of Christ Also a Tentative Theory of THE BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD BY Rev. Joseph Horner, M. A., D. D., LL. D. Author of Daniel Authenticated, &c. Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology London, England Copyright, 1907 BY Joseph Horner PRES8 OF Pittsburgh Printing Company The incentive to the preparation of the following treatise is, perhaps, sufficiently indicated in its first paragraph, and needs, therefore, no further notice. It is the result of the pa- tient and persistent study of problems, one of which, in the line of investigation hitherto followed has been found to be most perplexing and affording, but little encouragement for the realization of a satisfactory solution. The "Commentatio" of A. W. Zumpt, though hailed as having come more nearly to a solution than that of previous or even subsequent writers, has failed to have satisfactorily removed the difficulties in establishing the accuracy of St. Luke, and is certainly to some extent in error in its list and dates of Governors of Syria for the period covered by the in- vestigation, and in placing therein, wholly unauthorized, the names of Cyrenius and the dishonored traitor, Lollius. How difficult appeared the case of Cyrenius to the schol- arly W. M. Ramsay, M. A., D. C. L., on the assumption of his having had a term as ruler of Syria in the closing year of Herod's reign and also the later term mentioned by Luke and described by Josephus, including the period from A. D. 5 or 6 to 11, can be seen by the effort made by so able a writer, so patient an investigator; the possessor of such a wealth of material as was utilized in the preparation of his treatise entitled, "Was Christ born in Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of Luke," yet the difficulties were not less- ened by him. From this book there will be found, in these subsequent pages, many quotations which it is hoped are treated with the fairness and' the respect due to so worthy and so fresh a contribution to the literature of this subject and to its emi- nent and conservative author. It may not be useless now to name certain contributions by the writer to the Methodist Review (Methodist Book Con- cern, New York, U. S. A.) which are somewhat germane to the purposes of this treatise. In 1872, with reference to Renan's Life of Christ, was 4 Foreword. contributed an article entitled, "The Birthplace of Jesus and the Chronology of the Infancy;" in 1875, to find its geographi- cal location and account for Matthew's quotation from Jere- miah, a paper entitled, "The Ramah of Samuel and Rachel's Lament;" a series of chronologico-historical articles from the standpoint or basis that the biblical and Assyrian chronolo- gies are both substantially accurate and the exhibition of their agreement or harmonization is simply a matter of interpreta- tion; in 1889, concerning the reign of Shalmanezer; in 1893, concerning the reign of Hezekiah: in 1894, "Pul or Porus, Jareb, Tiglath-pilezer." These articles are original contribu- tions which, if written at this date, would need some modifi- cations as a result of the latter exhumations in Mesopotamia, but are on the right basis for investigation. It may also be of service to name the book by the writer entitled, "Daniel, Darius the Median and Cyrus the Great," an authentication of Daniel's book, an identification of Darius the Median and modifications of the story of Cyrus the Great. In this book is to be found important matter which can be found in its form and application nowhere else. I have ventured to append to this present treatise the part of an exposition of St. Paul's 15th chapter of First Cor- inthians pertaining to the "Baptizing for the Dead" as con- taining an interpretation which may be of service as against the interpretation and practice of the "Church of the Latter Day Saints." With these words, the author commits this, his second venture in book publishing, to the general public, thankful for its completion and trusting that the same Providence which has kept its author enthusiastically at this kind of work and in it has given him the true luxury of the best years of his life, may, out of his various publications and ministerial labor, cause somewhat of profit to accrue to those who have received and shall receive them and be helpful in meeting some of the tendencies toward the disintegration of the fun- damentals of the Kingdom of Christ— "The Kingdom not of this World." West Park, Allegheny, Pa. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke A publisher of reference bibles was asked by a correspondent why the date of John's Baptismal ministry and that of the baptism of Jesus are in the marginal reference column put at A. D. 27, and yet the same margin dates the beginning of the minis- try of Jesus at A. D. 31 and the crucifixion at A. D. 33, this making what the correspondent calls a "jump" of four years. The matter was submitted to the writer for an answer. A Correction of the Marginal Dates of Christ's Ministry and Crucifixion It must be ^aid in justice to the publishers, that their correspondent is not quite right in his repre- sentation of the "margin". For the first appear- ance and preaching of John are therein given as A. D. 26. That date and 2j for Christ's baptism are most generally accepted as best authenticated. The apparent "jump" is occasioned by an unnoted change in the basis of the chronological notation. The first dates were strictly in accord with A. D., but the later dates are based upon, and give the year of his life through which he was then passing, be- ginning with his thirty-first year. 6 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Thus on December 25, A. U. C. (year of the founding of Rome), 779, A. D. 26, Jesus had com- pleted thirty years of his life, (was 30 years old), and on December 26th began his thirty-first year. As his baptism did not occur until some months later, and the year in our count ending with December, it came in A. U. C. 780, A. D. 27, and as no Passover is named in this year, it seems certain that it was later than April of that year when John was baptiz- ing the multitude, being as stated in the thirty-first year of his life. For the birth of Christ occurred in A. U. C. 749, which corresponds with B. C. (Be- fore Christ's birth) the fifth year, which series end- ed with A. U. C. 753, and was followed by 754, the same being the first year of A. D., that date being four years later than the true date of Christ's birth. On December 25, A. U. C. 781, A. D. 28, Jesus was thirty-two years old, and on December 26th be- gan his thirty-third year. During this year he at- tended the Passover. On December 25th. A. U. C. 782, A. D. 29, Jesus was thirty-three years old, and this year also he attended the Passover. On Decem- ber 26th he began his thirty-fourth year and con- tinued his ministry among the people until the month of April, A. U. C. 783, A. D. 30. Attend- ing the Passover he was arrested, and was crucified on Friday, "the great day of the Feast," which that year fell on the 15th day of Nisan, our April, after completing a life of about 33^5 years. Had the compiler of the marginal chronology noted that he had taken for the three years of his ministry the age The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. J of our Lord (Anno Aetatis Domini (A. Aet. D.) when he used 31 (i. e. 31st), the addition of the three years as marked by the three subsequent Pass- overs would have made all plain. Yet there is some excuse for the compiler's not specifically noting the change from A. D. to A. Aet. D., in the fact that the marginal note in Luke 2, 2., had stated that the year of Christ's birth was the fifth, i. e., four years before "the account called Anno Domini began;" a difference of four years being thus indicated. Simi- larly the vision of Zacharias in the Temple was dated the "sixth" year before A. D. began, (that is counting from Nisan, but the 5th year counting from our January.) A very common source of confusion arises from overlooking the distinctive difference of the ordinals, i. e., 1st, 2nd, etc., and cardinals, i. e., 1, 2, 3, etc., that is from "first" to fifth there are four, not five years. The most general consensus of opinion or author- ity seems to accept as the date of our Lord's birth- day in (say December 25th), A. U. C. 749, B. C. 5, which we may call A. Aet. D. 1st year. As John was six months old when Jesus was born, and as Josephus states that the priestly course of Abiah, to which his father belonged, ministered in the Temple in July and October, it follows that the baptist was born late in July (say 25th) A. U. C. 749, B. C. 5th. As the usual age for entering upon the priest- ly or Levitical functions or the duties of a public teacher seems to have been thirty years, it was in perfect accord with this usage that Luke, after hav- 8 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. ing given an account of his baptismal consecration and related events in continuation of his further purpose, should note the fact that "J esus himself" having thus been inducted into his office by a recog- nized authority, was likewise of the age of thirty years, as was required by law or usage, that as fur- ther confirmatory of his right to exercise this auth- ority in his ministry, carefully guarding against the supposition of the fatherhood of Joseph, he should retrace his genealogy, being the "second Adam," from his advent as "the Son of David," in the Cara- vanserai of Chimham in Ramah, which is Bethle- hem — or nigh unto it — to Eden's first Adam; "which" Adam, like to Jesus, "was the son of God." (Luke 3, 23-28). Only of this son of God, and of the one woman, his wife — these two, sinless at their advent upon this earth, could it be said that "male and female," by the direct interposition of Almighty God "created he them," until the sinless second Adam, by the direct interposition of the same God, was added to their number completing thus a trinity concerning all of whom it could be said that "in his own image, male and female created he them." This early or primitive record as to the earthly advent of sinless mankind is in full accord with the record of these two evangelists, and the three inde- pendent records confirm and fulfil the prophetic in- terpretation of the first woman, that in the prom- ise concerning her "seed," or offspring was included the incarnation of Deity, which was accomplished in the sinlessly miraculous conception and birth of The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 9 one at the advent of whom Mary might have exul- tantly cried as did Eve: "I have gotten the man, to-wit Jehovah." In following the story of our Lord's ministry it occurred to me that exact justice had not been hith- erto done to Luke's singular exactitude in the use of certain Greek words or expressions. As a result of this failure as to a verbal form or derivative, more or less uncertainty colors the efforts to fix up- on the Roman date to which the following refers : viz : Luke 3, 1, etc., which in our version reads thus : "In the fifteenth year of the reign (riye/xovuxs) of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor ( i7y e/AovevWo?) of Judea, the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias in the wilderness" . . . etc. Interpreters on the one hand have assumed that this date must be counted as referring to the reign of Tiberius as Emperor and successor of the dead Caesar Augustus, late Emperor, while others have referred it to the period previous to his sole reign as Emperor, but by neither does there seem to be suggested a 'Satisfactory reason for selecting this form of expression — and this particular year from which as a date to count. The True Date of the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar fixed and the Form Accounted for As apparently intended to be determinative of the seeming uncertainty, at least in greater part, is the io The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. fact that Luke does not unequivocally state that this "word of God" came to John in the "reign" of "Tiberius Caesar" The word used is K rjyeiwvm* which in the New Testament occurs here only. It is a derivative from the word used in the same verse as descriptive of those who, for the most part, held a position subordinate to a superior in authority; and in the classics is also used of commanders of armies or leaders of military expeditions. That Ti- berius was not then Emperor is distinctly suggested by his title, "Tiberius Caesar," his title when after the death of Augustus he ascended the throne be- ing, "Imperator Caesar Augustus," Augustus being the distinguishing mark of the supreme ruler of the Roman Realm. From these considerations it would seem clearly to appear that Luke did not refer to the Imperator- ship of Tiberius, but to the commandership of the armies, and the governorship of the provinces, with the latter of which he seems to have been first in- vested at the date referred to. It is also for our pur- pose important to note the fact, that prior to 765, Tiberius when referred to in the consular tables is named simply Tiberius, or Tiberius Claudius Nero, or Nero Claudius, nor does Germanicus appear with the title "Caesar" until his consulship, A. U. C. 765. It was, doubtless conferred upon both at the same time in that year, since it was at this time, appar- ently, that Augustus settled the succession to the imperial throne, by designating Tiberius as his im- mediate successor, and requiring Tiberius to adopt The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. n Germanicus and make him his successor. By this arrangement both being recognized as heirs to the imperial throne, seem to have thereby been entitled to be called Caesar. Returning now to Luke's chronological statement we may satisfactorily verify its historical accuracy. It is plain that if Jesus was born near the close of A. U. C. 749, he would complete thirty years of his actual life near the close of A. U. C. 779, and the next day enter upon his thirty-first year. Counting back from 779 to the fifteenth year brings us to A. U. C. 765. This is the year when Germanicus Caesar was Consul, and when Tiberius Caesar re- turned from his command in Germany, and when he was accorded a gracious welcome, and a magnificent triumphal ovation and procession through the streets of the imperial city, thus marking this year 765 as epochal, the most glorious and impressive and resultful in the life of Tiberius, and therefore the least likely to be forgotten of any year of that age of Rome, and therefore a date of certainty from which to count, and thereby make accurate record of the time of the occurrence of subsequent events. It was then, as herein suggested, that the succession was definitely arranged and the rule of Tiberius Caesar as sharing the imperial throne was made ab- solute, and therefore the statement of Luke 1, de- scribing the rule as an * rtye/xovuL" has a singular exactness. It was this passion for precision and certainty that, doubtless, under Divine inspiration, led Luke to fix upon a date, epochal, widely known, 12 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. unforgettable, of easy verification, as was the begin- ning or advent of the Tiberian Era, by his scenic triumphal march, and succession to copartnership with Augustus the supreme ; thus embalming in im- perishable history this advent as an established datum from which counting to determinately fix up- on the year in which was heard the "voice" of a herald in Judea, officially proclaiming the advent of one who visibly on this earth founded a kingdom which "is not a kingdom of this world," and was sharer with his Father of an imperium, which in- cludes all realms and dominates all authorities. PART 1. The Account of the Enrollment or Taxation of the Empire Ordered by Augustus and the Relation of Cyrenius Therein I venture now to suggest that the same exactness will be found in his statement of the taxation or en- rollment or registration, ordered by Augustus, and the relation of Cyrenius thereto. But before entering upon a somewhat critical scrutiny of the statement of Luke concerning this decree and the enrollment or taxation, our purpose of arriving at a definite conclusion as to the mat- ters in controversy may be profitably subserved by some preliminary considerations as to the conditions and relations then existing. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 13 The then Existing Conditions of Judea, and of Herod when the Order came from Augustus The order was sent to Herod at a time peculiarly unfavorable to its being carried into effect. Herod was himself at the time suffering under a most loathsome ailment, which eventuated in his death a short time after the decree reached him. He was also, in the midst of a most distressing and very- serious disagreement with his family. To this may be added the outbreak of sedition and turbulence of the populace at Jerusalem and its environs, so that it is improbable that he would hastily press to im- mediate completion this especially offensive imperial command. He certainly would not dare to forbid the publication of the decree, or refuse to make known its provisions, but might easily find an excuse for delay, satisfactory to Augustus, with whom he was at this very time in especially great favor and the object of his penitent complaisance; his imperial master having with noble frankness confessed his error and the injustice of his course of treatment of the Jewish King. This state of reconciliation and favor continued until the death of Herod, which oc- curred not later than the first week in the April sub- sequent to the birth of the Christ. Meantime the law-abiding people would prepare to obey and gather, after the Jewish manner, at the places of their several ancestral allotments. As Judea was as yet a kingdom, having its own executive ruler and its own laws, and not being a mere province of the empire, nor at all under the jurisdiction of any 14 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. of the presidents or governors of any of the prov- inces of the Empire, the carrying into effect of this order was vested in the King, and would come under Jewish precedents, law or customs; nor is it at all likely that during Herod's lifetime this duty would devolve upon a governor or ruler of Syria; since Judea was not in Herod's time an appanage of the province of Syria, nor had the Governors of Syria any control of, or authority in Judea. On invita- tion of Herod they took some part in the contro- versies of Herod with his children and other rela- tives; Caesar having ordered or permitted Herod "to get an assembly together, and to appoint some place near Berytus, which," said Augustus in his advice, "is a city belonging to the Romans," (there- fore not in Judea), "and to take the presidents of Syria, and Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and as many as he thought to be illustrious for their friend- ship for him, and determine what should be done by their approbation. These were the words of Cae- sar that he gave to him." (Jos. Ant. 16, II, §i.) It may be noted as a significant fact that the ad- visory committee did not meet on Jewish territory, but as directed by Augustus, for the specific reason given in the "advice" that it was a Roman City, in this way avoiding any infringement upon Herod's domain, or interference with his royal prerogatives. It is also evident that no tax had been levied upon the estates of the people under the decree of Augus- tus when Archelaus was acting as King by virtue of Herod's will, awaiting the pleasure of Augustus The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 15 for his confirmation; nor later, while Ethnarch; since none of the turbulent or seditious asked for a release from any tax or assessment upon their estates, or even in the nature of poll tax, but only that he would take away those taxes which had been laid upon what was publicly sold and bought. (Jos. 17, 8, 4.) No authority whatever seems to have been exercised over Judea, by the presidents or gov- ernors of Syria until after the death of Herod ; and then only during the interregnum, by the invitation of Archelaus, induced by seditions and disorders, which as acting ruler he was unable to repress. So when Archelaus immediately after Herod's death, was starting for Rome, he at the earnest request of Ptolemy sent for Varus, President of Syria, to aid in suppressing sedition and disorder; and when he left for Antioch, Sabinus, just out from his consul- ate, a favorite of Augustus and his steward of Syrian affairs, met Varus and Archelaus at Caesarea, as he was making haste into Judea, to preserve Herod's effects, having to take charge of the proceeds of Herod's will to Augustus: and when restraint was removed by the departure of Varus, he seized all he could of Herod's wealth and seized also the palace, which caused greater confusion and rebellion. (Jos. War; B. 2, 2, 2. Ant. 17, 9, 2, 3.) During Herod's last sickness, some three months perhaps before his death a sedition of great violence was raised, which resulted in the destruction of the golden eagle which he had placed over the great gate of the temple; for which the high priest Matthias, 1 6 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. because of his favoring or participating with the seditious, was deposed, but not otherwise punished, Joazer, his wife's brother being put in his stead. But another Matthias who had raised the sedition on March 13th, B. C. 4, was, with his companions, burnt alive. For some reason not explained, and, apparently, not understood, Herod was very lenient with other participants in the affair, and it certainly seems remarkable that the successor of the offending high priest should be so near a relation. Back of this sedition there may have been as its primary cause or origin, the strong opposition to this order of Augustus, and it may be that it is to this that Josephus refers in the statement that "the Jews took the report of the taxation heinously," not the taxa- tion itself, but the information; ("report") that the order for a personal and estate tax had gone forth. It could, indeed, have been only the publication of the decree that at the time referred to had stirred up the multitude, doubtless under the leadership of the high priest Joazar; for it is implied that the levy had not then been made. As previously intimated, or suggested, a sedition occasioned by this proclamation or its simple publi- cation may not have been so very offensive to Herod ; not so much so, at least, as was the imperial order : and a postponement of it on account of the violence of the populace may have met with some degree of favor with the enfeeble'' king. That Joa- zar had joined in with some seditious purpose of the people seems clearly indicated by the fact, that The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. ly almost immediately after the death of Herod, Arch- elaus deposed "Joazar from the high-priesthood, whom he accused of having assisted the seditious." His influence with the people was not thereby much impaired, as he afterward held the high-priesthood, "which had been conferred by the multitude upon him." His leadership continued with some inter- missions for many years, with some breaks, as did the opposition of the Jews to the taxation ; yet when opposition seemed useless, it was by his persuasion that they abandoned it; and "being over-persuaded by Joazar's words, they gave an account of their estates without further trouble." In the years of Herod's reign herein traversed, there is no indication that any governor of Syria had claimed or exercised authority in or over Judea, or attempted any interference in its affairs. What may seem to be exceptions, were simply responses to invitations extended to them by Herod to visit him for consultation and advice, and the assemblage at Berytus was called by the advice of Augustus, and included the rulers of the neighboring king- doms, dependencies, and persons of distinction, chiefly to give counsel in regard to the management of his family concerns, in no case compromising his regal prerogatives, but reserving to himself the final determination and judgment. For all purposes, the kingdom of Judea was wholly separ- ate and independent as to Syria and other prov- inces of the Roman Empire, subject as were they all to the central authority of the Imperial Republic 1 8 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. at Rome. There is no indication that the imperial authorities had, during Herod's life-time, or during the reign of Archelaus, sent a special legate or other officer into Judea, to there, make effective this Augustan decree, or any such enrollment, or to levy a tax, or to collect a tax upon the persons or estates of the Jews. The proof of this is plainly evident from the fact that immediately after the death of Herod, Sabinus, the personal or private steward of Augustus was sent into Judea, to take possession of Herod's effects, bequeathed in his will to Augustus, as his personal and private property, and to take possession of the entire estate, not in any wise as a subject of taxation, or a source of revenue for the Republic. In the entire account of the grasping proceedings of this unscrupulous steward, there is not the slightest reference to any previously exist- ing governmental enrollment, assessment or uncol- lected or collectible tax. Had there been such, it would certainly have been known to him, and the omitted reference thereto is strongly in evidence that the Augustan decree of Herod's day had not yet been carried into effect. We may now say without fear of successful con- tradiction that the name of Quirinus or its Greek equivalent, Cyrenius, has not been reported as found in connection with the story of Herod, neither in Josephus, nor in any other contemporaneous his- tory, as in any way connected with the Jews and Judea, or, as in Herod's time, governor of Syria. It is also apparent from what appears above, and The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 19 from what shall appear later herein that had Cyreni- us been governor of Syria, he could not have held any office, or performed, or superintended such an enrollment in Judea, without the special consent and appointment of Herod, which it is to the last degree incredible that he could obtain. Moreover, had he been thus engaged with this enrollment at the time, prior to, or immediately subsequent to the birth of the Christ, it would seem to have been utterly im- possible that his name should have been omitted from the number of the close friends and councillors of Herod. In treating of the relation of Herod and his king- dom to Syria and its governors, great stress has been laid upon the anger which the misrepresenta- tions of Sylleus had created in Augustus, and upon the expression that "he had formerly treated Herod as a friend, but would now treat him as a subject"; but, little, if anything, is said of its absolute with- drawal and the humiliating repentance of Augustus. Thus, in Ramsay's chapter on "Herod's enroll- ment," (?) he does not tell us as Josephus does, that Augustus was reconciled, nor does he quote that utterance of Augustus, after his discovery that he had been deceived by a false account of the trouble in Arabia. As reported by Josephus, Augustus was not only reconciled to Herod, but, also that "he owned his repentance for what severe things he had written to him, occasioned by calumny, insomuch that he told Sylleus that he had compelled him by his lying account of things to be guilty of ingrati- 20 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. tude against a man that was his friend." For this "lying" the liar was executed by order of Augustus. (Jos. 1 6, 10, 9.) Referring to the angry letter of Augustus, Dr. Ramsay writes; "These emphatic words, coming from an emperor whose words were always well weighed and weighty, soon bore fruit in action, as we may be certain." Of this he gives no proof, and his own words indicate that he has none to offer. Continuing, he writes: "Nothing is related as to the exact form that the Roman action took"; but he tells very emphatically how much Herod was em- barrassed by the loss of Augustus's favor." A complete refutation of this travesty of Josephus is furnished in Ant. B. XVI., C, IX. The form was that "Caesar would not admit so much as an em- bassage from him to make an apology for him : and when they came again, he sent them away without success, (Sec. 4), Sylleus meantime remaining at Rome, or being always there when his circumstances needed his presence at Court, and where he was al- ways graciously received. The result was that Herod's subjects in Trachonitus rebelled and joined the robbers in pillaging their own country and Ara- bia. Meantime Obodas, the Arabian king died, and his son took the government before he sent to Augustus, who was greatly angered by this precipi- tate and unwarranted assumption. Taking advan- tage of this offence, and with the object of getting him turned out of his principality, Sylleus filed seri- ous charges against Aretas, the son, which met with The Gospels of Matthezv and Luke. 21 favor, Aretas had, however sent an embassy bear- ing an epistle and rich presents to Caesar, the letter charging Sylleus with many and serious crimes, among them that of poisoning Obodas, in order to obtain the kingdom for himself. To these Caesar gave no heed, but sent back both ambassadors and presents. Meantime the affairs of Judea and Ara- bia became worse and worse. Herod, therefore, resolved to send Nicolaus of Damascus to address Caesar himself. So Aretas also sent an embassy which met Nicolaus in Rome, who when a hearing was granted him, began a series of accusations against Sylleus, but was stopped by Caesar, "to show that Herod had not done what was charged against him in Arabia." Nicolaus then showed that Sylleus had borrowed from Herod five hundred talents secured by a bond stipulating that if not paid when due, it should be lawful to make a seizure out of any part of his country," He said that there was no army, but a party of soldiers sent out to re- quire the just payment of the money." This was not sent so soon as the bond allowed, but that Syl- leus had frequently come before the Presidents of Syria (doubtless, through, their influence to secure a promise from Herod that he would extend the time to such date as they might fix, or at their dis- cretion), and that at last he had sworn at Berytus in Syria, that he would pay the money within thirty days. Upon failure to pay at the time appointed, courtesy demanded that Herod should notify the presidents of his intention; and according to inter- 22 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. state custom or law, to obtain their permission for a party of armed soldiers, with hostile intent, to pass through Syria, of which they were rulers, to violently enter Arabia, with which they were then at peace, and having received that permission, the seizure was made in Arabia. Thus far our contention that the kingdom of Ju- dea in the later years of Herod was, to say the least, on equality with, and entirely separate from Syria; — an independent kingdom indeed — except that it was, like all other parts of the realm, dependent up- on and subordinate to the central authorities, — the imperial executive and senatorial authority at Rome; so that if Cyrenius had been governor of Syria in the later years of Herod's reign he could not have made the enrollment, nor performed any governmental function without the consent of Herod or an ap- pointment by him. In this Herod and Judea differ- ed from and ranked higher than the province of Syria and its governors. In further attestation or confirmation of this our conclusion, Josephus writes, that; Augustus, "also made him (Herod) a procurator of all Syria, and this on the tenth year afterward, when he (Augus- tus), came again into that province (Syria); and this was so established, that the other procurators could not do anything in the administration without his (Herod's) advice." (War. L, 20.) To this may be added the attestation of Merivale, that by Augustus, when personally present in Judea, "Herod was himself guaranteed protection by spe- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 23 cial ordinance from the obnoxious interference of the governors of Syria," and that "such were the brilliant rewards he obtained for maintaining the police of the Arabian Desert; chasing the nomad sheiks, and gradually enuring them to the stern con- trol of civilized authority. (Hist. Rom., Vol. IV., p. 114 — Lond., p. 171.) This may suffice for this part. PART 2 The Examination of the Greek Text of Luke We may now, therefore, subject the language and form of the Greek text of Luke to. a more or less critical examination, with the intent to ascertain, if possible, what Luke really did write; and then, to give a true interpretation of what he has written. If the text, of which the Authorized Version is the translation, is the original, there would seem to be no valid reason why the statement of Luke 2 : 2, may not be rendered : "This, the first ecumenical registration (as ordered by Augustus) was made, (or effected) whilst Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Even as found in our common version, the statement that it was carried into effect by Cyrenius, whilst a Syrian officer, absolutely precludes the idea that the order was carried into effect and the regis- tration actually made at or near the date of the de- cree itself, or date of its having reached Herod, since it has been clearly shown, that in Herod's life- time he could have done nothing of that sort. 24 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. That decree ordered : aTroypa<$>e, "the survival of the fittest," is not the rule," but rather the reverse. A manuscript un- acceptable or rejected in its own day, might be de- stroyed or relegated to an upper shelf ; and not be- ing much or at all in use, would not be worn out; while one that was much in use, after a time would be so worn as to make it necessary to replace it by another. In that case, when the cursive had come into use, it would take the place of the uncial, and the parchment being still of value, even when the text was discredited and as such, of little value, the material might be. and in many cases certainly was used for other purposes, and hence their rarity. To instance the Sinaiticus. This manuscript has no history, and until 1859, when some loose leaves were seen by Tischendorf it seems to have been con- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 25 sidered to be of little value or authority. Critical examination indicated that it had been corrected by six different hands, among them, the original copy- ist, the corrections being in some cases, afterwards changed ; this itself indicating that it was not satis- factory in the fourth century, its own day ; and this may perhaps account for its "survival" for some fourteen centuries, though altogether unknown to the world outside of the Monastery of St. Cathe- rines in Mt. Sinai. It suspiciously omits the dox- ology to the Lord's prayer, which is found in the manuscript of "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles'* : the date of which is set by critical ex- perts at about A. D. 120, one hundred and eighty or more years earlier than the Sinaiticus. Why this Sinaiticus should be held as so very high authority for the true text, may possibly be, because it is about the latest to be brought "out of darkness into the light," and thus adds its quota to the disagreements among the uncials themselves. The text called "Textus Receptus," seems to have had an existence prior to the making of the Sinaiti- cus, as is indicated by the identification of the person who received the Ms. from the writer of it, as the corrector of this text : a correction which could be made either by addition or omission in some way, and which in this case took the form of omission of the Article v (the) or whatever was needed in reducing it to the form herein protested against. As the common text stands with the rendering herein given, the date of the registration is no 26 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. otherwise determined than that it was made whilst Cyrenius was in office in Syria. As to that date, it is definitely stated, that, while holding office in Syria, after the banishment of Archelaus, he came into Judea, and made an enrollment or registration of the Jewish people and of their estates. This was subsequently to the death of Herod, and not earlier than A. U. C. 758, some eleven years later than or after the birth of Christ. As definitely character- izing the office held in Syria by Cyrenius, Luke with his usual exactitude, uses the active voice, present tense participle of a verb, which is nowhere else used in the New Testament : and this participle is used only twice by Luke, and appropriately enough to the purpose of this paper, and the discussions of the importance of the matters pending in unsettled limbo, it is used only as designating in exactly the same form and words at the same period, the office then held by Cyrenius in Syria, and by Pontius Pil- ate in Judea, viz. : "^ye/AovevWos," ch. 2, 2, where it describes the Syrian office of Cyrenius and in ch. 3, 2, where it characterizes the office of Pilate in Judea ;* translated as to the former "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria," but more literally in the *Luke ii.2. 7jy€}XOV€.vovTOYj, and, therefore, in the connec- tion with the preceding avrr) must be rendered: "This, the first enrollment." To this Luke adds: "iyevero r/yep^ovevovros rrjs %vpuxvevovros) in Syria. Furthermore that he is not responsible for any other comparative description or reference thereto in his continuous history of the Christian movement, writ- ten for his friend, or perhaps, patron, Theophilus, or by others quoted therein. The only comparative or emphatic reference to it, is, that this was the first enrollment of its kind ordered by Augustus. We may emphasize his statement, that the registration was made in Judea when Cyrenius was governor (riytfiovevovTos) of Syria. It follows, therefore, that according to Luke, there was no prior registra- tion in Judea — and as there is no record of his hav- ing been governor of Syria at an earlier date, it fol- lows also that there was no registration or enroll- ment in Judea during the sojourn of the Davidic family in Bethlehem. Gamaliel's reference was clearly to the same or- der, but Luke is only responsible for the faithfulness of his report ; and contradiction or inaccuracy there- in has not hitherto been found, nor is it likely that such will appear hereafter. That a registration or enrollment in Judea was made by Cyrenius while governor of Syria is con- firmed by contemporaneous history; and if there The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 35 never was a later one of this kind, that would not invalidate his affirmation that there was a "first," and that, that first was made by virtue of that order or "decree" named by him as issued near the close of Herod's reign. (A. U. C. 749-750.) Neither is Luke's "credit as an historian at stake," whether the statement that "there was a periodical numbering or enrollment in the Syrian province be true or false. For he has neither affirmed nor de- nied such a statement. He does not say specifically, that this enrollment was made in Syria at any time, only as the word ecumenical may cover Syria. He does specify Judea, and other history confirms his statement, both as to time and person. He does not say that "Christ was born actually during the time when the first enrollment of the series was be- ing made." On the contrary he is authority for the reverse. He writes that the Christ was born after the decree or order had been issued; and that that order was the cause of the movement which brought it about that the birth of the child occurred while his mother was in Bethlehem, but does not write that this enrollment was or was not then effected in Syria, but simply notes that some ten years after the birth of the Christ child, Cyrenius, whilst governor of Syria, carried this order of Augustus into effect. After a vast amount of research to find material sufficient to discredit the story at this point, and the use of the most extraordinary expedients, and in some cases employing methods absurd and irrational in the eighteen centuries since this birth, the state- 36 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. ment of Luke as to this matter, is the only one, espe- cially as to this item, which can claim a true and historic, uncontradicted authority. Neither is Luke's credit as an historian jeopard- ized by the most singular absurdity of clinging to this hour, to the theory that Luke is responsible for the current assumption that Cyrenius was twice gov- ernor of Syria. He is responsible for having writ- ten that Cyrenius was governor of Syria at a date determinable within very narrow limits by the ban- ishment of Archelaus, which, when he wrote, was common matter of history, and to many of that age well known, having occurred during the lifetime of very many then living persons ; but no man, whether learned or unlearned, higher critic or lower critic, can take what he has actually written, be it either the common text or the Alfordian text, and therefrom, make Luke attribute for this indefatigable soldier more than the single term allotted to him in Jose- phus. Luke's "first" (vpwrrf) applies with absolute and unerring distinctness to the ecumenical (oikov- /itvrjv) enrollment, and to that only; and for that enumeration as the "first" imperial "ecumenical" registration or enrollment of persons and estates he is responsible; and thus far, no positive evidence has been adduced to discredit it. "Clement of Alex- andria refers to the statement of Luke and speaks of it as the occasion when they ordered enrollments to be made!' (R. p. 123.) It is somewhat singular that the notion of a second governorship of Cyrenius apparently originated with Christian writers, and The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 37 not earlier than late in the second century. It does not seem to be known, or to have been found in the historic or other works of the early unchristian Roman writers, (i. e. writers not of the Christian persuasion), prior to its introduction and use in the writings of the "Christian Fathers." This erroneous interpretation, and the confident appeal for its con- firmation to the Archives and public records which, in all probability, had been destroyed by fire before the enthronement of Vespasian, and which none of these Fathers, in all probability, had ever seen, and of which it is uncertain that any republication had ever been made, are certainly misleading later in- vestigators. These likewise are represented as as- suming that for the vindication of Luke's Gospel and Acts, it is absolutely necessary to find for this vindictive husband of the fascinating but divorced Lepida, at least, one more term as governor of Syria, than real history allots to him. Our latest writer, in his latest treatise, in making choice of his authori- ties, wisely declining the leadership of Zumpt, pa- thetically, almost depairingly, writes: "We follow Mommsen; but it is obvious how difficult and slip- pery the whole career of Cyrenius is, and how slow we should be to condemn Luke for an error in re- gard to him." (R., p. 233.) Slowness is certain- ly commendable in the case of Cyrenius, since the trouble grows out of the falsity of the assumption that he was governor of Syria at an earlier period than that historically established, and the utter fail- ure to historically confirm their assumption. Luke 38 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. has certainly committed no "error in regard to him." He names him but once, and that is when he writes, that while governor of Syria, Cyrenius made the enrollment under this first imperial ecu- menical decree of Augustus, which was to enroll the population of the habitable world so far as then un- der his jurisdiction and government. Prior to this, at twenty years intervals Augustus had taken two enumerations of Roman Citizens, but not including their estates or property. (R., p. 233.) It will be readily seen that by this exactitude of Luke, and a similar exactitude in translating: — simply taking his words or statements and interpret- ing them in their ordinary, or usually accepted meaning: Cyrenius is entirely eliminated from all connection with this worldwide apographe, or en- rollment, until his appointment as governor of Syria, and not then as to Judea, according to Josephus, until after the death of Herod, and indeed not until after the banishment of Archelaus in the tenth year of his reign, which is in perfect accord with Luke's record. It is very evident that there was no vacancy, break or interregnum in the governorship of Syria during the last two years of the life of Herod. As to the rule of Saturninus and Varus, the account as found in Josephus indicates very clearly that Varus had been appointed governor of Syria some time before the death of Herod, and that on his way to Antioch, the capital of Syria, he lemained sometime in Jerusalem in consultation with Herod. Just be- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 39 fore the arrival of Varus, Saturninus had been in Berytus and afterward in Judea with Herod, at whose request and by the advice of Augustus, the matters concerning his household disturbances had been under consideration ; so that it is apparent that the two governorships overlapped each other ; Satur- ninus during this period, holding over, awaiting the arrival of his successor, and, therefore, being gov- ernor de facto ; Varus being governor de jure; and the Christ having been born in this interval, or time of double authorities, as is most probable that he was, a Christian Father might rightly speak of Jesus as having been born under Saturninus, and another might just as truly say that, that distinction belong- ed to Varus, both being correct. The extraordinary persistence in the determina- tion to find a date for a Syrian rule of Cyrenius, prior to that assigned to him by Josephus and Luke, has certainly been misleading and left the period sub- sequent to Varus, and A. D. 5, a chaotic congestion from which the elimination of the assumed claim of Cyrenius for a term in that period seems to bring the desired relief. As above stated Varus did un- questionably come to the Syrian office prior to the death of Herod, and was actively engaged in Jew- ish affairs, after Herod's death, by invitation of Archelaus at the beginning of his reign, and for sometime after. Assuming that Varus entered up- on his term in B. C. 5, the continuous insubordina- tion of the Jews during the earlier years of Arche- laus, and the manifest worthlessness and incompe- 40 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. tence of that prince is suggestive of the necessity for the continuance of Varus, to give aid and to sup- press with his legions the seditious, and maintain the authority of the ruler. As it was a matter of great importance in the ef- fort to establish the claim set up for the second term for Cyrenius, A. W. Zumpt has prepared a list of the governors of Syria, a portion of which from B. C. 9, A. U. C. 745 to A. D. 17, A. U. C, 770, is given, and in parallelism a correction of the same by this writer : ZUMPT'S My suggested corrections. Names B.C. A.U.C. I'm Names B.C. A.U.C. T'a Saturninus ... 9 745 3 Saturninus ... 9 745 4 Varus 6 748 2 Varus 5 749 5 Cyrenius 4 750 3 Lollius 1 753 3 A. D. A. D. Censorinus ... 3 756 1 Censorinus ... 1 754 1 Vol. Saturninus 4 757 2 V. Saturninus 4 755 S Cyrenius 6 759 5 Cyrenius 5 758 6 Q. Cae. Silanus 11 764 6 Silanus 11 764 6 C. Calp. Piso 17 770 .. C. Calp. Piso 17 770 .. Years 25 Years 25 The objections to Zumpt' s list are : as to Cyrenius, that his presence is a mere assumption against prob- ability; as to Lollius, that in B. C. 2, he was with Caius in Armenia, that in B. C. i, he was dismissed in disgrace for having betrayed Roman secrets to the Parthians: Cyrenius took his place with Caius, and Lollius took poison and died. It was a strange conceit with Zumpt that such a villainous traitor should receive any reward, and not rather an execu- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 41 tion on a Roman cross, than the most desirable Province in the Empire. We may now take up the matter of the enrollment with a view to confirm the statement of Luke that this was the first of its kind and nature ordered by- Augustus, and that it was the first, or the beginning of a series of enrollments of a like nature and kind. In the treatise of W. M. Ramsay, already quoted, he states that "periodical enrollments were made in Egypt under the Roman Empire, and that "existing documents establish its existence as periodically practiced in the other parts of the realm from A. D. y6 to A. D. 230. . . This was a general Census." (pp. 131, 134, 151.) Dr. Ramsay attempts to show that such a cycle, but of fourteen years was used in Rome, but does not satisfactorily establish his sup- posed Cycle. Somewhat of confusion, doubtless arises from the oft-times failure to distinguish the general census, from the ordinary census, which was made as occasion required, and was not for purposes of taxation or revenue, but rather to keep account of those who were worthy to be senators, or to hold offices of trust and authority; to bear arms, etc., five years being, perhaps, the most common interval. "Our authorities hardly ever mention any number- ing except of Cives Romani.' , (p. 161.) A twenty years Cycle was somewhat familiar to the Romans, about the close of the civil war, and as we shall see afterward; those of the Cives Romani, apparently having no relation to the revenue or to taxation, the object of the ecumenical Censi subsequently ordered. 42 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. "Numbering of Roman Citizens was three times made by Augustus; (viz. at) B. C. 28. B. C. 8. A. D. 14." (p. 158.) Dr. Ramsay enters the plea that "the fact that the first two enumerations of Augustus show an interval of twenty years forms no argument against our theory of a fourteen year Cycle." That may be so, but they certainly do not help to maintain it, and are quite in the line of our contention for Luke's historical accuracy. There is, however, other evidence of a twenty year cycle of the entire empire. From Tacitus (Annals, VI. 41), we learn that the Clitae, a tribe subject to the Cappadocian King, Archelaus, retreated to the heights of Mt. Taurus, because they were compelled, in Roman fashion, to render an account of their revenue, and submit to tribute. This is the case re- ferred to by Zumpt, in his "Commentatio," though the date is A. D. 36, and, therefore, could have nothing to do with Cyrenius who died in A. D. 21. The date of the order being after their retreat, and the arrival of the troops from Syria, would seem to indicate that the order itself would be dated the pre- vious year, A. D. 35. A twenty years cycle would then show that the next previous order would be enforced A. D. 15, and the next preceding order would be B. C. 5 ; the year of the birth of the Christ as herein taken. According to Luke, this order was made known in Judea, prior to the birth of Christ, in the form of an enrollment, Roman-world wide in its comprehension; described by Luke, as the first of this kind issued by Augustus, and clearly identi- fied as the same which, after years of delay caused The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 43 by the disordered state of the ethnarchy, was car- ried into effect while Cyrenius sustained the same official relation to Syria that later on Pilate sustained to Judea ; the time, the purpose and its character as including for taxation or revenue population and estates, were made known in the account by Jose- phus. Thus far, no absolute contradiction nor positive statement of ancient authority, prior to the date of Clement and Tertulian; nor indeed at any time, has been adduced to its discredit ; nor yet to establish the existence of a series of the same kind and nature, prior to the date Luke has given us. It is indeed patent, clearly evident, that not earlier than this date, was the Empire in such a condition, as to allow or to justify the issuing and enforcement of such an "ecumenical enrollment. " But with the temple of Janus now closed, and peace prevailing through the Empire, having himself just returned from its pacification, Augustus was for the first time in his life, in circumstances to order and enforce the enrollment of the population and estates of the Empire, such as that which Josephus describes and Luke names as having been carried into effect at the later date in Judea, when Cyrenius was hold- ing the same relation and official position in Syria, as at a still later date, Pontius Pilate held in Judea, and was subsequently held by Eelix and Festus, who being all vested with both military and civil control are best described in our English vernacular by its word "governor." 44 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Referring again to Dr. Ramsay we recall his state- ment, that "an enrollment took place under Vespa- sian;' dated by Dr. Viereck, A. D. 75-76, A. U. C. 829-830. From this datum a cycle of twenty years would give the series following: B. C. 5. — A. U. C. 749.— A. D. 15.— A. U. C. 769.— A. D. 35.— A. U. C. 789.— A. D. 55.— A. U. C. 809.— A. D. 75. — A. U. C. 829, in which three of the dates have been, as reported, verified; the first B. C. 5 — A. U. C. 749 by Luke, A. D. 35 by Tacitus, and A. D. 75 by the distinguished authorities as named herein from Dr. Ramsay (p. 132). With this pre- sentation, it would seem that the exactitude of Luke's historic statement as to the decree of Augus- tus ; and its enforcement, might be again submitted, as sustaining all that is claimed for him as author- ity; and as wholly discharging Christian apologists from the necessity for this purpose, of rinding for Cyrenius a second term in the governor's palace, in the most delightfully luxurious Antioch, the then capital of Syria, the richest and most sought after of the Provinces. As illustrative of the troubles in which those are involved who assume for Cyrenius an earlier Syrian term than that named by Luke and Josephus the following may be cited from Dr. Ramsey. The as- sumption necessarily carries with it the obligation to determine the date of the administration. The effort to settle this preliminary wrings from Dr. R. the distressing confession that "here again we are confronted with a serious difficulty. "He is not The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 45 alone. He is in antagonism with "his supreme authority," Mommsen, who suggests B. C. 3-1, but acknowledges that "the question is involved in seri- ous doubts," and Dr. R. writes, "That time is doubly inconsistent with Luke: Herod was dead before it, and it is inconsistent with the whole argument of the preceding pages." (pp. 228-9.) "Again Dr. R. complains, that "Luke does not specify exactly what was the Roman office which Qurinus had at the time when this first enrollment was made." The only answer needed to this is, that Luke knew only of one enrollment, namely : "the first ecumenical enrollment ordered by Augustus about B. C. 5," which, he writes was carried into effect whilst Cy- renius was holding to Syria, the same official rela- tion which Pilate was holding, at a later date, to Judea; namely, that Roman Office, to which was committed the full control of the province, both civil and military, in subordination to the supreme auth- ority, centered at Rome. Dr. R. further writes : "There is also a question, whether Luke could rightly describe the authority of Cyrenius by the words 'holding the hegemonia of Syria/ but of that point my exposition leaves no doubt." It is enough to know as to that, that whether he could or could not rightly so use these words it is absolutely certain that he does not de- scribe "the authority of Cyrenius by the words hold- ing the hegemonia of Syria." Nor does he any- where use either "hegemonia, or hegemon" in con- nection with Cyrenius. In describing his office a 46 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. verb is used, which is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It is used only twice, and then, by Luke only in the present tense participial form, first, Lu. 2 :2, as to Cyrenius; Lu. 3:1, as to Pontius Pilate, thus distinctly teaching us that what Pilate was officially to Judea, Cyrenius was officially to Syria. Dr. R. claims that "the usage of Luke shows that he regards hegemonia in the provinces as the attribute both of the Emperor and of the officers to whom the Emperor delegates power." "This" he also writes, "is quite true in point of fact." To this a positive negative is the proper answer. No such usage is to be found in Luke's writings. In every case it will be found he uses the root and its derivitives, when applied to govern- mental officials, as descriptive of a subordinate or subordination and not of supreme authority. Even when applied to Tiberius Caesar it was with the usual exactness of Luke so applied. For at the time referred to, he was subordinate to Augustus, having in that year of his triumph, been endued with both the hegemonia and title of Caesar, the hege- monia, indicating his subordination as an appointee of a higher power, the very same root word being applied to Pontius Pilate, in the same connection and verse. I most heartily agree with Dr. R. that "Luke does distinguish accurately and clearly the enroll- ment." (p. 246-7.) He tells us clearly and dis- tinctly that the order given to Herod before his death was for the "first ecumenical (or Roman The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 47 world-wide) enrollment of the people of Judea, and that it was carried into effect, so far as Judea was concerned, when Cyrenius was, in the Province of Syria, as to office, what Pilate was in Judea : ( w^o- voWros) i. e., Cyrenius being governor, both military and civil," as was Pilate) whenever and whatever that might mean. It was 8077*0, irapo KouVapos AvyovoTOV, airoypdeo6aL iracrav rqv oiKOVfJi€vrjv t a decree (order) from Caesar Augustus, that all the habitable world (Empire) should be enrolled, and no other to which he distinctly refer- red, and the report of the enrollment made by Cy- renius as described by Josephus, proves that it was for population and the estates of the people. It was certainly the enrollment effected by Cyrenius, which Gamaliel had in view ; and as the book of the Acts, is simply a continuation of what he had had begun for the information and edification of a friend, or, perhaps, a patron, the insertion of the Article by Luke sufficiently indicates that he had previously men- tioned it. The maintaining of our contention of the absolute elimination of Cyrenius from any or all connection with any enrollment in B. C. 5 or 4, or prior to that mentioned by Luke as under this de- cree issued by Augustus, and verified by Josephus as to its characteristics ; and the actual carrying out of it as stated by Luke, leaves the historicity of Luke in this matter without flaw, discredit, or impeach- ability. It accords well with this elimination of Cy- renius from Syrian office and from all connection with this first apographe, prior to A. D. 5, that from 48 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. the time of the banishment of Archelaus to the date of Tertullian, Clement, Justin Martyr and the Christian Fathers, no unchristian Latin or Greek author seems to have been found or quoted as dis- tinctly and unequivocally mentioning more than one term of Syrian governorship, or as prior to that set forth by Luke, and historically and unquestionably verified by Josephus, as contemporaneous with or as in immediate sequence to, the banishment of the Jewish Ethnarch, the son of Herod the Great. When the Apologists wrote, the Empire- wide en- rollments were in the ascendent, and the sharply marked distinctions were doubtless obscured and but seldom noted. The interpretation would be then conformed to the existing status. As the early en- rollments of Augustus were known to have long ante-dated the birth of the Christ, it would seem ab- surd to take Luke's "first" as intended to belong to apographe; but as very properly belonging to' a "Sy- rian" governorship, prior to that named by Luke. To bring the text into accord with the assumption of an earlier governorship of Syria, what seems to have been the most frequent method was, to omit the Ar- ticle, construe Trprr} adverbially with tycvero. This left unanswered the question, "When did this earlier term come in?" To this question, after most labori- ous researches by most able and competent investi- gators, no, even approximately, satisfactory answer was found. The story, indeed, seems to be one of failure along the entire lines, and none more con- spicuously so than that of A. W. Zumpt. Even our The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 49 very industrious searcher for an answer to his inquiry after the birth place of Christ, and this kindred study of Cyrenius, with all his scholarly ability and wealth of materials, has not as yet reached a conclusion sat- isfactory to himself. As to what he is pleased to :all "Herod's enrollment," the trend of evidence is against its ever having been made, and it had been well not to have overlooked the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke had written, that any such en- rollment was made in Judea during the closing years of Herod's reign. Nor is it at all probable that if an enrollment had been effected by Herod, that Cy- renius after so short an interval, would have been sent into Judea for the express purpose of making such an enrollment. On the theory that Herod had at the time of the birth, or a short time after, effected the enrollment, it would be altogether unaccountable that a monarch so quick witted and so deeply inter- ested, should, when the Magi' came with their start- ling inquiry, have failed at once, to have recourse to the Registrar, or the record where the name and dwelling place of any who claimed to be of the house and lineage of David, would have most certainly been found. The non-existence of any such record, only can account for the entire absence of any refer- ence to it by priest or scribe, Sanhedrin or king. It remains only to be said that by the correction of the mistaken interpretation which has come down to us from the Christian Fathers, the necessity of de- pendence upon methods that are conjectural, com- plicated, unsatisfactory, vaguely uncertain, at the 50 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. best incomplete, on which to build up or retain our confidence in the integrity and historic faithfulness of this gospel, is removed. The removal comes to us as a relief at a time when this faith is needed as never before. That this elimination of Cyrenius and a true interpretation of the true text has, or may not have, heretofore, been satisfactorily made, simply seems to indicate, that when emergencies arise, He, whose word cannot fail or be broken, meets the emergencies in His own way, at times by obscure instruments, and by whomsoever He wills, — But meets them. Note. — All reference has been omitted to the recently discovered inscriptions found at Tivoli and Venice, which are conjectured to have some bearing upon this case of Cyrenius. This omission must not be construed as having occurred because they have been overlooked or not been carefully consid- ered, but simply because they neither add to, nor de- tract from, the result obtained by the method pur- sued herein, in solving the problems on hand. If, however, these inscriptions are to be treated as gen- uine "Antiques," of the closing years of Augustus, the campaign or rather raid against the Homona- denses referred to by Tacitus, must be taken as an incident made necessary, doubtless, by the resistance to his subordinates in carrying into effect the Ecu- menical enrollment as described by Josephus and referred to by Luke as going on in the interim from A. D. 5 or 6 to ii. At an earlier period their in- subordination had been suppressed by the joint co- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 51 operation of the Syrian troops and Archelaus, king of Cappadocia. Some years later, as reported by Mommsen, Cyrenius "cut off their supplies and compelled them [the Homonadenses] to submit, en masse. Whereupon they were distributed to the surrounding townships, and their former territory was laid waste/' (Vol. I, p. 364). This exploita- tion at the head of his legions, suddenly, unscrupu- lously, sweeping down upon the rebellious people and their land, quickly and ruthlessly having accom- plished its purpose, virtually placed Cappadocia and its helpless king in the hands of Augustus, after the king's death, to be made by Tiberius into a Roman province. For this success, Cyrenius was awarded the or- namenta, and other adjuncts of a triumph, not a Triumph — this, since about B. C. 25, not having been granted to any but members of the imperial family. This limitation itself therefore points to a late year in his reign, and indicates that the conquest cannot be referred to date much earlier than A. D. 10. In A. D. 11 Silanus superseded Cyrenius in the government of Syria, who passing into obloquy, in obscurity survived Augustus and died in A. D. 21. 52 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Account of the Wise Men, Their Visit to the Christ, Their Return and the Flight to Egypt and Return to Nazareth of the Davidic Family. As allied to the foregoing, and subservient to the same general result of the credibility of Matthew and Luke, the following is thereunto appended, and may serve to offset Renan's assertion that Jesus was born at Nazareth ; and also the assertion of Dean Al- ford and others, that these gospels are utterly irrec- oncilable for the period of the "infancy." In the consulship of Calvinus and Pollio, A. U. C. 714, Herod was made king of the Jews by the Rom- an Senate. (Jos. Ant B. 14, C. 14, § 5.) The statement that he reigned thirty-seven years there- after must be taken in the sense that is usual in such expressions, which count a part at the beginning or ending of a reign as a full year, and in our enumer- ation would therefore indicate that he died in his thirty-seventh year's reign. A. U. C. 750 : B. C. 4. A chronological synopsis of the evangelists' story from the birth of Jesus up to the return from Egypt to Nazareth, may show how naturally the gospel history harmonizes with facts known from other sources. Assuming for the sake of defmiteness that Jesus was born December 25th, A. U. C. 749, B. C. 5, the events may be arranged thus : At Bethlehem occurred A. U. C. 749, B. C. 5, the birth ; during the first week after the birth we place the visit of the Shepherds, and on January 2nd, 750 B. C. 4, the Circumcision. Forty days after the The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 53 birth, say February 2nd, at Jerusalem in the temple, Mary presented her offering for ceremonial puri- fication; after which they returned to Nazareth, which they might reach say February 13th. Meantime, according to Matthew's record, occur- red the arrival at Jerusalem of certain "wise men" (Magi) who, at their home in the East had been attracted by the appearance of a star, which in some way, perhaps, somewhat after the manner of the vi- sion to the shepherds, had been identified with the expectation of the coming of the "new born King of the Jews." If the appearance to them was simul- taneous with that to the shepherds, and they had at once started on their journey, lightly equipped, they might easily reach Jerusalem in, say forty-five days, from any place which has been suggested as their own country. Naturally assuming that the king would be born in the capital, they needed no special guide, but had only to follow the often travelled road to find their goal. To Herod, their inquiry. "Where is he that is born 'King of the Jews/ " and the statement that "they had seen his star in the East," with the declaration of their purpose; "and are come to worship him;" must have had, especi- ally at this juncture, a very startling and disquiet- ing effect. For he had just been confronted by a "sect of the Pharisees," "who were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by divine in- spiration," "and who foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his pos- terity should be deprived of it." He had just slain 54 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. "such of the Pharisees as were principally accused," and all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees had foretold." (Jos. Ant. B. iy, C. 2, §4.) It was fortunate for these visitors that Herod, having learned from the Chief Priests and Scribes, that Bethlehem was the predicted place of the expected king's birth, had concluded to use them to make sure of his prey. It is, certain- ly, here in evidence that no registration had been at this time made, or his first move would doubtless have been to detain the Magi, and examine the list for the name of any one claiming descent from Da- vid, — or of having a child born there. He, therefore, received them most graciously, and instructing them to go to Bethlehem, he exacted a promise to bring back to him "word that he might go to worship him." Thus instructed they set forth on the evening of the day of their arrival at Jeru- salem, intending to go to Bethlehem, which Mat- thew does not say they ever reached, but enters the record that on emerging from the city, they rejoiced at seeing "the star which they had seen in the East," evidently a luminary of a special and distinctly rec- ognizable form and sufficiently low and near and of movement which could be followed. They were thus assured that they now had what was absolutely necessary, — a sure guide to the place where the new- born King would be found. They certainly needed no special guide for the six miles southward on the public road to Bethlehem, no more than they had needed it on their way by the regular road to Jeru- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 55 salem. They, therefore, unhesitatingly followed the familiarly recognized luminary, with great re- joicing, ' 'which went before them (northwardly) until it stood over (the house), where the young child was." This guidance precluded any public in- quiry at Nazareth and cast over the visit the veil of entire privacy. Meantime on the absence of any word from them or trace of their movements, and being thus thwart- ed in his scheme by the Magi, Herod vented his fury, and avenged the contemptuous insult and mockery of him, upon the children of "two years and under," in the vicinage of the Zuphite Hills in the allotment of Benjamin, the son of Rachel, where she was buried; and this cruel murder by order of the king recalls to Matthew, the dissuasive of Jeremiah, ad- dressed to her posterity, the Benjaminites, against their contemplated flight into Egypt after the tak- ing of Jerusalem, and their dispersion. Their fate was first formulated as a lamentation of their Mother Rachel foreshadowing thus their destruc- tion ; but when the despondent remnant, had reached beyond Bethlehem the Ramah or higher of the two hill tops of the "double hill tops" of the ridge where was the Caravanserai of Chimham, the son of Bar- zillai in Ramah, the Lord's prophet still more clearly expressed their doom of death ; if in defiance of Je- hovah they under Johanen's lead took refuge in Egypt. Despite this warning, from this place on the Zuphite ridge, the Ramah of Samuel, and David's refuge "nigh unto Bethlehem," they took 56 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. their departure, and in Egypt met the miserable fate predicted. To this Herodian slaughter of the innocents of her race and vicinage Matthew parallels the reminiscence of the Wailing of the Mother over the earlier dis- aster. Having reached Nazareth they quietly entered the house, and during the day rendered their homage to the newborn King, and presented their gifts. That night they were warned of God in a dream not to return to Herod and they then departed to their own country by another way ; doubtless, crossing the Jor- dan, south of the sea of Galilee and, passing east- ward through Perea, hastened to their distant home. There was urgent need for haste as was evinced by the divinely interposed dreams. For, meanwhile, the occurrences in the Temple would be common talk "among those that looked for redemption in Jerusalem," and this reaching the king would fur- nish a much desired clue to their home. Not, how- ever, until the departure of the Magi, and therefore, unknown to them, was Joseph warned to flee into Egypt, and waiting only for the night, the Davidic family with all secrecy began their flight, and cross- ing the Jordan, passed southward on its eastern side, through Perea, and rounding the Dead Sea journey- ed southwestwardly into Egypt, their destination, as directed in their dream. Thus they escaped the danger of either remaining within, or passing down through the west-side dominion of the exasperated king, and yet had time enough to reach a place of The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 57 safety. Of the death of Herod, he was informed by an angel in a dream, and was also directed "to go with the young child and his mother to the land of Israel." This was, strictly the name applied to the northern part of what had been included up to the death of Herod in the kingdom of Judea, and was known as Galilee and Samaria. Intending, however, to pass through Judea, when he came to its border, he learned that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father, Herod, and was afraid, therefore, to go that way and so "turned aside to the parts of Galilee/' a singularly terse, but accurate reference to the changes wrought in this short time; and significantly confirming the date of the return as immediately after Herod's death : who by his will had directed that Samaria and Galilee and Perea should be united under the Tetrarchy of his son Herod Antipas, who contemporaneously with Archelaus in Judea, entered upon the govern- ment of the territory thus consolidated. This note of change also indicates that the returning family pursued the route around the southern and eastern shores of the Dead Sea, through Perea as on their flight, on the east-side of the sea and the Jordan un- til they arrived again at their own city of Nazareth. Counting the death of Herod as not later than the first week in April gives Joseph some six weeks for his journey to, and his residence in, Egypt, and his return to Nazareth. The prompt notice of Herod's death, the urgent directions given and the route taken and diligently pursued, would certainly bring 58 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke. the entire family to their home, in the "land of Isra- el," about May of A. U. C. 750, B. C. 4. Thus we have the whole of these events, without jostling, or crowding, and without departing at all from the most reasonable probabilities, comprised within the period during which they have usually been conceived to have occurred, and within which, if at all, it would seem that they must have taken place. SYNOPTICAL NOTE It is claimed for this treatise, among other items: 1st. That in it is first brought out the force of Luke's descriptive term; "apographesthai pasan ten oikoumenen;" (to be enrolled the entire habitable [part of the] world then under Roman jurisdic- tion) , it being the first to point out its decisive influence and im- portance in the defence of the structure, the form and interpretation of the text. The vital and controlling influence of its Roman world- wide expansion, and its use for these purposes has been overlooked; its very presence almost ignored; and in this treatise, only, has it been successfully used for the solution or removal of the difficulties, which, for the most part, owe their origin and persistent continuity to the uncritical neglect of this emphatic, descriptive, limitative word, ten oikoumenen. 2nd. That it having been found, that Augustus had begun a series of Roman world-wide enrollments of persons and estates, at intervals, or in a cycle of, twenty years recurrence; and several of these having been traced and the dates verified as far back as B. C. 5, A. U. C. 749; but none of this kind of an earlier date having been found, the natural conclusion is, that this decree of Augustus dated B. C. 5, was properly designated by Luke, as the first of that first series of ecumenical enrollments established by Augustus, and continued by his successors. 3rd. Taking, therefore, the definitely determined B. C. 5, A. U. C. 749, as the year when the first of the series or cycle of twenty years' enrollments of persons or estates began, and that Herod died early in April B. C. 4, A. U. C. 750; also, gathering from Luke that the Augustan dogma or decree was the occasion of the journey to, and the sojourn at Bethlehem, where both Gospels declare that prior to the death of Herod, Jesus was born; it would seem necess- arily to follow, that, the birth must have occurred at a date some- where between the beginning and ending of these fifteen months. But the then existing conditions, as we have seen, greatly discour- age the acceptance of a date earlier than the later months; indeed, than the latest month of B. C. 5; and the itinerary of the events subsequently to the birth, points strongly, if not indefeasibly, to a date late in the last month of B. C. 5, A. U. C. 749, as the true year and month, when the HOLY CHRIST-CHILD "WAS BORN IN BETHLEHEM OF JUDEA." Baptism For The Dead. As it seems at this day, the practice of baptizing for the dead is still continued, that is, that living persons receive baptism or immersion in or with water, with the understanding that a person already dead, will thereby receive the same benefit as he would have realized, had it been administered dur- ing his natural life-time, it may be well, therefore, to consider the hitherto inexplicable, or rather, the unsatisfactorily answered challenge of the expres- sion in i Cor. xv, 29: "What shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" For an answer, it is thought, some material may be found in the three subsequent collateral verses. Unquestionably, the subject matter under consid- eration by the writer of the chapter is "the resur- rection of the dead" as claimed and taught by Jesus and his followers, as well, the resurrection of Jesus himself, as of all that had died, or that should, die in the belief of a resurrection at the last day; and who in the acceptance of it, and their enrollment as co- workers with the apostles, were subject to the same annoyances that fell to the members of the early Church. This doctrine was by none more strenu- ously held nor persistently preached than by Saul of Tarsus. Supplying this subject after the preposition, which significantly enough is used in regimen with 60 Baptism of the Dead. the accusative as well as with the genitive; "Huper ten anastasin ton nekron" we then translate thus: "What shall they do who themselves are baptized on account of the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" i. e., What shall they do for themselves or for others, who, influenced by their teaching and their belief of this doctrine, assume the obligations and endure the consequences of their identification with the Christian organization? With the interposition of this question, resuming his argument in opposition to the doubts and ob- jections alleged against the resurrection of Christ as the "first fruits" of the general resurrec- tion "at the last day;" he follows it up with illus- trative references of what he had done and suffered on account of his belief and his preaching of this doctrine, both as to Christ and the general resurrec- tion; simply emphasizing his question by its repe- tition: "Why are they, then, baptized for them?" [or on their account?] But to this he adds the personal and pertinent inquiry, "And why stand we" [myself and others,] "in jeopardy every hour?" (i. e., on account of the same doctrine and teaching) ; thus strongly attesting his own unshaken confidence in its truth. "I protest by your rejoic- ing which I have in Christ Jesus, I die daily," [i. e., I protest by the rejoicing, as to you, which I have in Christ Jesus, I am every day exposed to death.] "If after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it to me, if the dead rise not?" Baptism for the Dead. 61 He thus seems to contrast his future with that of those who are contestants in the arena, or the Olym- pic games. These during their toil in training and fighting or running, etc., are absolutely assured that there will be an advantage to the successful competi- tor. In the arena, victory will save life and give to him great glory; in the race each has the same op- portunity of winning the prize and the crown which is absolutely sure to be awarded to the one who first reaches the goal. Each may, therefore, count all his toil and hardships as nothing, compared with the award and glory, — the possible results of his victory and success. But to those who have staked their interests and expectations, — their all, — upon the resurrection of Jesus as a fact, and upon the assurance derived from Him of their own ultimate resurrection and without doubting or hesitation have urged others to enter upon their life, assume its responsibilities, endure its disabilities and suffer- ings, there is no possible compensation, "if the dead rise not." In that case there is nothing of value left as an inheritance to take the place of that which they had set before them. For in Paul's estima- tion, the things for which other men do strive are nothing to him, nor to all those who had cherished with longing heart the glory of the anastasis. "I fight with beasts at Ephesus," why? Expressly to attest the actuality of my belief in this doctrine, and am subjected to such ordeal in consequence of the fiendish opposition which its preaching arouses in the hearts of the unbelievers. But what profit 62 Baptism of the Dead. or advantage shall ever accrue to me, if what I con- tend for shall never be realized? If there is to be no resurrection, it had been better for us to have cried : "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Yet, undismayed by threats, sufferings or danger, he cries to his followers : "Let not yourselves be de- ceived, evil communications corrupt good manners/' — deprave good principles or truths — "Awake to righteousness," — rightly arouse yourselves out of your delusions, — "and sin not." Make no mistakes — no compromises with unbelievers. So Paul, and all the preachers of his day, despite all these dangers and sufferings, constantly insisted upon and fearlessly proclaimed these fundamental truths to both Jews and Greeks. So, too, undaunt- ed by the well known and expected consequent suf- ferings of their future earth-life, men and women were being discipled, and being received by baptism into the communion and fellowship "of the king- dom which is not of this world," on the profession of their faith in the teaching, the ultimate realiza- tion of their own anastasis and the resurrection of all those who with like faith had taken to them- selves "to endure as seeing the invisible," whatever might befall them, so they "might prove the power of the resurrection of their risen Lord." But the introduction of the subject of discussion between the preposition and the objects upon whom the power to raise the dead is to be exercised, seems to raise the question as to what is to be understood by the baptismal terms or term as there used. If Baptism for the Dead. 63 used in its ordinary or ritual application, it seems difficult if not almost impossible to account for, or to give a satisfactory reason for the recital, in the immediate continuation of his argument, of the per- secution and sufferings which were and must be his lot whilst persisting in his adherence to the teachings of the Christ. It seems, therefore, a necessity to seek for a dif- erent application of the verb than that of its more common or ritual use. The connection of the sub- sequent-context, indeed, seems to point in another di- rection, and strongly suggests the meaning or usage in which it first appears in Christ's own employment of it prior to his putting it in his commission to the apostolic office. It is somewhat significant that to the burden of his preaching : "Repent ye, for the kingdom of God is at hand," there is no instance of his having fol- lowed the example of John by calling his hearers to "come and be baptized." That many of his hearers did come and were baptized is certain, but not by him, but by his disciples, who either with or without his authority followed the practice of his forerun- ner, who had distinctly announced that the Christ would baptize "with the Holy Ghost." Baptism is first referred to by our Lord in his conversation with the mother of Zebedee's children when she asked that one of her two sons might sit on his right hand, and the other on his left in his kingdom. To the sons he said: "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be bap- 64 Baptism of the Dead. tized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, we are able. And he saith unto them, ye shall indeed, drink of my cup and be bap- tised with the baptism that I am baptized with." (Matt. xx:22, 23. So Mark, x:38, 39.) A usage of a similar or same import is found in Luke xii :5o. To James and John he put the question in the most unmistakable form. To them it must have had some more or less well understood meaning. The very fact that the word was used for the pur- pose of testing their fidelity and courage, indicates that a meaning such as is portended by its use, and interpreted by the sequel of their lives, was not al- together new nor unusual, but rather that it was current and characteristic of their day. Neither of them when they gave their pledge could possibly have understood all that was implied therein; but they must have known that it bound them to a life of absolute and unreserved devotion and consecra- tion to him as their leader and head, a meaning which always was and still continues to be the cen- tral thought in the gospel ordinance of baptism, yet in the crisis of their Master's baptism these two unwaveringly kept their troth. Not until Gethsemane in their presence had borne witness to the agonizing conflict of the man of sorrows, not until shuddering Calvary had been burdened by his cross, had heard his last piteous cry and was relieved of its crucified victim, not un- til he had passed into the grave and dwelt among the dead, not until the vacant tomb, the terrified Baptism for the Dead. 65 guard, the love-lorn weeping Mary had testified that he had risen, not until he had ascended from their very presence up on high, not until after Pentecost and Stephen's cruel martyrdom, did they have even an intelligent approximation of that to which their words, "WE ARE ABLE," had irrevocably bound them; nor, on the other hand, had they, then, a clear and complete understanding of what awaited them, if they "endured to the end." The doctrine of the resurrection is truly common to Judaism and Christianity, but not until Christ had further illus- trated it, and given himself as its "first fruit" did it have the power and attractive characteristics which it had in Paul's day. Yet neither the sacrifice made nor the final results were minified nor unduly ex- alted. It is in perfect harmony with Paul's attributing his sufferings, his being hourly jeopardized, his daily exposure to death, to the preaching and the persistent maintaining cf this peculiarly character- istic doctrine of the gospel system, that he should thus apply in Christ's own meaning of consecration to suffering and sacrificial devotion, the baptism of those who had come and were still coming, and in the full faith in the actual resurrection of the once dead Christ, and the final resurrection in glory of all who in him trusted, and in the faith died, ac- cepting the test, thus saying in effect: "We are able;" to endure all that is meant in this pledge : what shall they do if we temporize and draw back ? Must they then, renounce the faith and go back to "the 66 Baptism of the Dead. beggarly elements" of heathenism, or Judaism? What will their sufferings, endured in faith based on our teachings, profit them if there be no resurrec- tion past or future? No more pertinent question can be asked at this hour, than that which at the culmination of Egyptian, Greek and Roman civil- ization and Jewish obduracy, faced the great apostle when writing this epistle to the most cultured peo- ple of his day. On the truth of this doctrine, the authenticity of the statements of the gospels, the actuality of the first resurrection, is suspended the hope of mankind for salvation, and the final consolidation of "the kingdoms of this world" into the "kingdom of Je- hovah-Christ." With the application of Christ's usage and mean- ing of the ritual term herein employed, the difficulty of interpretation would seem to disappear, and the verses of this entire section of the discussion be in entire harmony. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, then we," Paul and all others of like faith "are of all men most to be pitied." In that case it were indeed, preferable to go before men with the exhortation, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." But apostolic heroism suffers no reaction or abate- ment. Cautionary exhortation and warning may do what is needed. "Be not deceived," neither de- ceive yourselves nor let others deceive you. "Evil communications;" — associations — companion- ships, "corrupt good manners;" — deprave good Baptism for the Dead. 67 principles. "Awake to righteousness ;" — be alert, wakeful, rightly arouse yourselves, — "and sin not;" make no sinful mistakes through inactivity, indif- ference or neglect to be on your guard. "For some [among you] have not the knowledge of God." Ig- norance of God is their special characteristic, yet they have influence among you. This I talk of to your discredit, your shame. NOTE As collateral evidence of the accuracy of the in- terpretation above given, we may advert to Paul's usage of the baptismal terms elsewhere. As pre- liminary to our purpose it may be observed that the preposition 'eis used in connection therewith seems improperly rendered by "into," its true meaning in such connections seeming to be more properly ex- pressed by our preposition "to." In the course of an examination of the meaning of the words or phrase; "eis ten Jordanen" every occurrence of the phrase in the New Testament and Septuagint was brought into view. In the last case the actors were soldiers who "leaped into the Jordan," but the 'eis still retained its proper meaning "to," the verb "leaped," being compounded with the preposition, "en," and this combined with the 'eis (to) made "into." In every such case, therefore, the Greek is properly rendered by the English "to." Turning now to the passages in which Paul uses the baptismal terms, it will be found that uniformly 68 Baptism of the Dead. the metaphorical meaning given them by Christ, namely, that of "consecration," "setting apart," to a life of suffering, privation or death may properly express his meaning. Thus : Rom. vi : 3 ; Gal. iii : 27, "were baptized into (consecrated to) Jesus;" I Cor. 1:13, "were ye baptized in [consecrated to] the name, etc., x :2, were baptized unto [consecrated to] Moses; xii:i3 "baptized into one body," [consecrat- ed to one body] may all be rendered and understood according to Christ's usage, as consecrated or set apart, devoted, with the idea of exclusiveness to the life and the endurance and faithfulness to what is named, e. g., to Christ, to Moses, to the undivided unit, — the Church. Date Due r l f***G«*g3S2t wm -v***^^ ^ $ BS2569.4.H81 The gospels of Matthew and Luke; a .^.'. n . c :.! t ;° n .Tt ,eol ? 9ical Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00013 5543 I i ■r BV 111111 I in u