Fatheer Anthony Maas' Commentary on Matthew 2:1-12

1. When Jesus therefore was born.] In this section the evangelist describes a. the arrival of the Wisemen; b. the subsequent consultation of Herod and the Jews; c. the charge of Herod to the Wisemen; d. the adoration of the Wisemen; e. their return.

α. Treating of the arrival of the Wisemen, St. Matthew considers 1. the time of the event; 2. the persons; 3. the place; 4. its object; 5. its motive.

1. The time of the arrival of the Wisemen may be considered relatively to its contemporary history, and relatively to other events in the life of Jesus. α. The first point is determined by the evangelist’s words “in the days of king Herod”; for though this indication does not give the precise year of Christ’s birth and the Wisemen’s arrival, it assigns at least a limit after which those events cannot have occurred. This limit may be determined in the following manner: a.] The evangelist speaks of king Herod, who must be well distinguished from Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee; b.] Josephus [Ant. XVII. ix. 3; B. J. II. i. 3] testifies that Herod died shortly before a Passover,—therefore in March or April,—thirty-seven years after his appointment, and thirty-four years after his conquest of Jerusalem [Antiq. XVII. viii.1; B. J. I. xxxiii. 8]. Now he was appointed king of Judea by Antony and Augustus A. U. C. 714, and conquered Jerusalem A. U. C. 717. Supposing, then, that Josephus counts portions of a year as a year [cf. Ant. XIV. xvi. 4; XX. x.; XV. v. 2; B. J. I. xix. 3], a practice that prevailed in Egypt and from there extended over the neighboring countries, and that he reckons from Nisan to Nisan [cf. Mishna, Rosh hashana, I. 1], we must conclude that Herod died between the 1st and 14th day of Nisan A. U. C. 750. c.] Again, Josephus [Antiq. XVII. vi. 4] states that shortly before Herod’s death an eclipse of the moon occurred, and astronomy tells us that such a phenomenon took place on March 12–13, A. U. C. 750, and that no eclipse occurred in the two years following. d.] Thirdly, Dio Cassius [lv. 27] and Josephus [Antiq. XVII. xiii. 2; Vit. 1; ibid. he corrects B. J. II. vii. 3] relate that during the consulship of Æmilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius, in the 10th year of his reign, Archelaus was deposed by Augustus A. U. C. 759; hence he must have begun his reign in 750, and consequently his father must have died either before or in that year. e.] Antipas was deposed by Caligula A. U. C. 792; but we have coins dated the forty-third year of his reign; hence he must have begun to rule in 750 at the latest [cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish People, I. i. p. 466; I. ii. p. 36]. f.] The above result, as far as the year of Herod’s death is concerned, is now accepted by most modern scholars: Fréret, Sanclemente, Ideler, Wieseler, Gumpach, van der Chijs, Lewin, Sevin, Schegg, Sattler, Memain; Wurm, Quandt, and Kellner approach nearly the same conclusion, while Caspari, Riess, and Seyffarth diverge farther. Thus far it is clear that Christ must have been born at the latest A. U. C. 749, and that our Christian era which begins with A. U. C. 754 or 753 must be carried back a few years.

β. The second point of time is concerned with the relation between the arrival of the Wisemen and the other incidents in the history of Christ’s childhood. Both St. Matthew and St. Luke mention five incidents of the holy infancy: St. Matthew: 1.] the nativity; 2.] the adoration of the Wisemen; 3.] the flight into Egypt; 4.] the slaughter of the Holy Innocents; 5.] the return of the Holy Family to Nazareth. St. Luke: 1.] the nativity; 2.] the adoration of the shepherds; 3.] the circumcision; 4.] the purification of the B. Virgin Mary and the presentation of the child in the temple; 5.] the return of the Holy Family to Nazareth. All agree that the evangelists coincide in n. 1, and that nn. 2, 3 of St. Luke precede n. 2 of St. Matthew; the difficulty begins with the adoration of the Magi, and extends over the subsequent occurrences.

Solutions. α. The adoration of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the Innocents must be placed between the circumcision and the purification. According to Bergier, the purification was delayed till after Herod’s death, but this cannot be reconciled with St. Luke’s account [2:22 ff.]; others suppose that Christ was born shortly before Herod’s death, so that though the Holy Family returned from Egypt within the space of forty days, the king had died in the mean time, and the purification took place on the legal day as described by St. Luke,—this is improbable, and contradicts the current tradition.

β. According to another supposition, the events occurred in this order: Adoration of the Magi [Aug. on Jan. 6], purification and presentation, flight into Egypt, slaughter of the Innocents. But it is improbable that Herod should have waited full twenty-seven days before taking action in a matter of such vital importance to him, and St. Matthew seems to say that the angel bid the Holy Family to flee into Egypt immediately after the leaving of the Wisemen. Though these difficulties disappear, if we suppose that the Magi came only a few days before the purification, it is hard to see why the Holy Family should have offered the offerings of the poor after being enriched by the gifts of the Wisemen, and St. Luke (2:39) appears to exclude the adoration of the Wisemen from between the purification and the return to Nazareth.

γ. A third solution arranges the events in this manner: The circumcision, the adoration of the Magi, the purification, the return to Nazareth, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the Innocents, and the return from Egypt. This satisfies, indeed, the words of the third gospel, but those of the first are not sufficiently considered,—Herod would have waited, at the least, nine days after dismissing the Wisemen on their search, and the angel would not have appeared to Joseph immediately after the return of the Magi into their country; besides, the offering of the poor in spite of the presents received from the Magi remains unexplained.

δ. A fourth solution suggests the following series of events: The circumcision, the purification, the adoration of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the Innocents, the return to Nazareth. Eus. Epiph. Juvenc. Metaphrast. believe that a space of about two years intervened between the birth of Christ and the adoration of the Magi; but this does not well agree with the words of St. Matthew, which imply that the Wisemen arrived almost immediately after Christ’s birth, and that they left their home as soon as they saw the wonderful star; again, according to this opinion Christ would have been born A. U. C. 747 or 746. Nor does the opinion of Papebroch that the Magi arrived a year and thirteen days after Christ’s birth satisfy the words of the first gospel, though they explain why the feast of Epiphany is celebrated on Jan. 6. Patrizi’s view that the Magi arrived about the middle of February seems to satisfy all exigencies of the first and third gospels and of tradition [Grimm, Corn. Knab. Fab. Est.]. After the purification the Holy Family settled in Bethlehem [Mt. 2:22], whither they returned from Nazareth [Lk. 2:39]. Thus the Wisemen had time to come from the East after the appearance of the star, and Herod could direct them to search in Bethlehem. Nor can it be said that the common tradition of the church, as represented by Aug. Pasch. Thom. Tost. Mald. Jans. Suar. Bar. Lap. is against this opinion; because nearly all of these writers are induced to place the adoration of the Magi before the purification, because the feast of Epiphany falls on Jan. 6; that this reason does not prove the point at issue is evident from the circumstance that on the same day the baptism and the first miracle of Jesus are commemorated, events that cannot be placed on the same day.

2. Concerning the persons of the Wisemen we must inquire: a.] who were they? b.] what were they? c.] how many were they? d.] how were they named? a.] Theodotion renders the Hebrew word “ashshaphim” of Dan. 1:20; 2:2, 27; 4:4; 5:7; 5:11, 15, by Magi, and the Septuagint version agrees with that of Theodotion in Dan. 2:2. Now the Hebrew term thus rendered applies to a class of persons at the court of Nabuchodonosor, renowned for their wisdom, their investigation of secret things, and the power of their charms. The Venet. renders the word by “astronomers,” and the Rabbis Abulwalid and Kimchi agree in this explanation with the Venet. In Wisd. 17:7 the signs of the Egyptian charmers are assigned to “Magic” art, and Acts 13:6, 8 the word Magi applies to false prophets. The Greek and Latin writers call Magi the priests and wise men of the Persians, who were at the same time counsellors of the kings, students of natural sciences, and knowers of the divine will; again, the name was applied to all kinds of jugglers and enchanters. The same name occurs among the Medes and Babylonians, and according to the common opinion, 39:3 refers to the chief of the Magi. In Plato, Porphyry, and Apuleius the Magi are described as knowing things divine, and as worshippers of the gods. St. Jerome [Dan. ii. 2] says that in common language Magi are wizards, but that among their own people they are not regarded as such, because they are the philosophers of the Chaldees, whose kings act always according to the direction of witchcraft. The opinion that the Wisemen were wizards is expressed by a number of the Fathers: Justin, c. Tryph. n. 78; August. Serm. xx. 3, 4; De Epiph. 2; Jer. in Is. 19:1; Orig. c. Cels. i. 60; Thom. iii. q. 36, a. 3, ad 2. St. Thomas, however, adds that, according to some writers, the Wisemen were not wizards, but learned astrologers, called Magi among the Persians and Chaldeans. In point of fact, there is nothing except their name that can prove their superstitious practices, while several reasons demand their moral integrity: God deems them worthy of his call; they do not only understand, but also follow the divine light; they overcome numerous difficulties in their search of Jesus; they offer him generously of what they possess; and they are instructed by an angel as to their manner of return. We cannot, therefore, be far from the truth, if we suppose that the Wisemen were members of the Persian Magi, belonged to the king’s council, wielded among their fellow citizens the greatest authority, and were wholly devoted to the study of the natural sciences, especially of astronomy.

b.] What were the Wisemen? Popular belief, which on good authority [cf. Baron. 30 ad 1 ann. Christi; Suarez, in 3 p. disp. 14, sec. 2, n. 7] ought to be defended as pious and probable, has it that they were kings. But weighty reasons militate against this tradition: α. The evangelist never calls them kings, though he gives that name constantly to Herod, and though their royal rank would have contributed much to the glory of Jesus Christ. β. Again, in the ancient monuments the Wisemen are never represented with the royal ensigns, but they always wear the headgear that is now used by the Persian Magi [patr. de Evang. pp. 318, 320; Garrucci, Storia dell’ arte Christiana, 213, 455; Kraus, Realencyclopædie der christlichen Alterthümer, ii. 350]. γ. No argument for the royal dignity of the Wisemen can be advanced from the writings of the earlier Fathers: Tertullian [Adv. Jud. 9; c. Marc. iii. 13] calls them almost kings; St. Ephrem names thorn according to the Syriac text only princes [Hymn. 15 in Epiph.], and Magi [Serm. 4 in Natal. Dni.]. They are named kings in the two homilies falsely attributed to Athanasius [Migne, 38, 961] and Chrys. [Montfauc. vi. p. 393], and in a sermon formerly attributed to August. [Migne, 39, 2018]. δ. patr. is of opinion that perhaps Cæsarius of Aries is the first to name the Wisemen kings; but even here we cannot claim more than a probability, both because the authorship of this latter document is not certain, and because the word “kings” has been marked as suspected by its learned editors [ed. Maur. t. 5, app. serm. p. 321]. ε. It is true that, later on, this opinion concerning the royal dignity of the Magi became quite common [gloss, ord. Pasch. Theoph. Arnald. Ps. Chrys. etc.]. But it must be remembered that the belief rested mainly on a misinterpretation of Ps. 71:10, the fulfilment of which was seen in the adoration of the Magi [cf. Christ in Type and Prophecy, i. h. l.]. ζ. The opinion has been abandoned by a number of the more recent commentators: Lam. says that they are renowned on account of their wisdom rather than their sceptre; Jans, thinks they can be called kings only because they were powerful and wise, and assistants of the king; Mald, calls them small kings or princes; Sylv. small kings; Est. powerful men, but not kings proper; patr. says that their royal dignity rests on no solid argument [cf. Schanz, Fil. Knab.].

c.] Number of the Wisemen. α. Most writers contend that the Wisemen were most probably three in number [Orig. Maxim. Leo, Pasch. Thom. Suar. Baron. Mald.]. This opinion is confirmed by the ancient representations of Christian art [cf. Garrucci, l. c. i. p. 365]. β. On the other hand, the Fathers of the earliest times are silent about the number of the Wisemen, and in the writings of the subsequent centuries we find a variety of opinions, among which the one that favors the number twelve is quite prominent [op. imp. Jacob. Edess. menol. arm. Jan. 6]. It is at least certain that the opinion in favor of the number three may have originated from the three gifts presented to the infant Jesus, or from this number together with the mystery of the Holy Trinity [cf Knab.].

d.] Names of the Wisemen. The names found on the earliest documents are Bithisarea, Melchior, Gathaspa [Schanz]; the names Gaspar, Melchior, Balthasar occur first in the lib. pontifical, of Agnellus; in Syriac writers we find the names Zarvandad, Hormisdas, Guschnasaph, Arsehac, etc. [Castello, Lexicon heptaglotton, ii. col. 1980, 1991]; the Armenian writer Vardapet Vardan gives the Syriac or Chaldee names Badadilma, Kaghba, Badadakharida; Salmeron gives the Hebrew names Magalath, Galgalath, Sarakin, or the Greek names Appelius, Amerins, Damascus. All this shows that the Bollandist writer is warranted in pronouncing this question wholly uncertain [Act. Sanct. i. Maii, pp. vii, viii]. This uncertainty does not affect the veneration of the Wisemen; for we venerate other Saints under the names given them by the Church [cf. Adauctus].

3. Home of the Magi or “Magi from the East.” a.] It has been repeatedly observed that “from the East” may be regarded as either qualifying “Magi” or as belonging to the verb “there came”; Knab. is of opinion that this second manner of construing the phrase is preferable and more commonly accepted; but Schaff, Alf. Lam. Weiss, etc. adopt the former explanation, and their reasons appear to be the weightier ones. De Wette points out that if “from the East” belonged to “there came,” it would probably follow the verb in the Greek text. Not to speak of the parallel construction in Lk. 11:6, we draw attention to the observation of Alf. that the same Greek verb which we have in the present passage occurs in the New Testament twelve times with a preposition and a noun, and in no case are they prefixed.

b.] The “East” has been variously interpreted as meaning Arabia, Persia, Chaldea, or Parthia with the provinces adjacent; for there were Magi in all these countries. The wording of v. 2 excludes, however, the possibility that the Magi should have been either from the eastern part of Palestine, or of Jewish nationality; for in that case they would have hardly spoken of the “king of the Jews,” instead of inquiring after “the king of Israel” [Judg. 6:3; Is. 41:2; 46:11; Num. 23:7; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 34].

c.] Just. Tert. etc. fix on Arabia as the home of the Magi; Chrys. Theoph. etc. on Persia; others specify Parthia, Babylonia, Egypt, or Ethiopia. Others again have recourse to the traditional names of the Wisemen in order to determine their home and nationality: Volkmar and Knab. explain Caspar as pointing to the Caspian Sea or to the Aryan family, the Japhetites; even if we adopt other explanations of the name according to which Caspar was king of Sipara (Kas-sipar) or of a part of India [cf. Schanz], the national character of the Saint does not change; Melchior, meaning king of light, points to the south, to Egypt and Ethiopia, and thus represents the Chamites; finally, Balthasar (bel-sar-usar or balatsu-usar), being a Chaldee name [Dan. 5], points to the countries around Babylon, the home of the Semites.

d.] The evangelist adds that the Wisemen came “to Jerusalem.” At the capital they naturally looked for the king or for tidings of him.

4. The object of the visit of the Magi is expressed by St. Matthew in the words, “where is he that is born king of the Jews? [we] are come to adore him.” In the East homage was paid to kings by prostration [cf. Gen. 23:7; 19:1; 42:6; etc.]. But in the present case there is hardly question of mere homage such as subjects paid to sovereigns. This follows (a) from the character of the king whom the Magi expected to find. α. The prophecy of Balaam [Num. 24:17] could hardly be unknown in the East [Orig. Ambr. Jer. Leo, Rab. Pasch. Bed. Euth. Theoph. Alb. Thom. Tost. Dion. Mald. Jans. Lap. Lam. etc.]. β. Suetonius [Vesp. c. 4] and Tacitus [Hist. v. 13] testify to the general expectation in the East that, about the time of Christ, men coming from Judea would gain supremacy. γ. Then, there was the prophecy of the seventy weeks of Daniel, which can hardly have been unknown to the eastern nations [cf. Grimm, i. p. 334]. δ. Again, the Hebrew Scriptures had been translated into Greek, and had in this version found a very large circulation; besides, about 140 B. C. the Sibylline prophecies began to spread [Sibyll. iii. 652–794; 36–92], and the Book of Henoch together with the Solomonic Psalms created an expectation of Jesus Christ [cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish People, II. ii. 137 ff.]. All this shows that the child sought for by the Magi was not regarded by them as a common king. (b) We shall see in v. 11 that the Wisemen, in point of fact, did more than pay merely royal homage to the child, and hence we rightly infer that they intended to do more.

5. Reason or motive of the Wisemen. The evangelist gives this in the words “for we have seen his star in the East.” We must consider first the literal meaning of the passage, secondly the influence of the star on the Wisemen, thirdly the nature of the star. α. The words “in the East” may belong either to the Magi, so that they being in the East saw the star [Sylv. Grimm, Keil, etc.], or they may qualify the star, so that it is said to have been in the eastern part of the heavens [Mald. Lap. Lam. etc.], or again they may be rendered “at its rising,” so that the Wisemen testify their observation of the star at its rising [Ed. Weiss, etc.]. Alf. observes that if the words meant “at its rising,” the pronoun “its” would have been added by the evangelist, if not here, at least in verse 9. That the observation had been made in the eastern country follows from verse 1; probably, it was also made in the eastern quarter of the heavens.

β. Many commentators believe that the star observed by the Magi in the East accompanied them on their way to Jerusalem [Chrys. Bed. Euth. op. imp. Haym. Thom. Fab. Tost. Dion. Sylv. Lap. Suar. Bisp. Reischl, etc.]. But Pasch. Jans. Caj. Sa, Lam. patr. Arn. Fil. Grimm, Knab. etc., deny that the star went before the Wisemen; these authors appeal to the words of the evangelist, “we have seen his star in the East,” not on the way; again, they would have hardly rejoiced so much at its reappearance [2:10], if it had been visible all the time of their journey; then, the evangelist says that the star they had seen in the East reappeared [2:9], not the star which had led them to Jerusalem.

γ. Opinions on the nature of the star that appeared to the Magi. (1) It was the bright phase of a variable star. (2) It was a new star that had never before been observed by the Wisemen. (3) Roth, Est. and Schegg insist on the fact that the star must have been among the heavenly ones.

(4) It was a comet; according to the Chinese astronomical tablets a comet appeared A. U. C. 750 in February, March, and April. This must have been visible at Bethlehem too, and may have pointed out the habitation of the Holy Family by the direction of its tail [patr.]. Roth explains the manner in which the star pointed to the place of the child in this way: when the Wisemen came near the place, the star suddenly and unexpectedly reappeared, so that they inferred the child’s presence from this extraordinary fact.

(5) Kepler observed in December, 1603, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn; Mars acceded in the following spring, and in autumn a very splendid star, much resembling a fixed star, was added. It occurred to the devout astronomer that the Wisemen might have witnessed a similar phenomenon, and on calculation he found that Jupiter and Saturn had been in conjunction A. U. C. 747, and that Mars had made his approach the following February and March; later on, the Sun, Venus, and Mercury were added, so that in March, April, and May A. U. C. 748 there was a perfect conjunction [cf. Sepp, Leben Jesu, I. 1, p. 107; Grimm, i. p. 348; Friedlieb, Leben Jesu, 2 ed. p. 308; Ed. i. p. 212 f.]. Kepler did not, however, explain the star of the Magi wholly by means of this conjunction; he thought that the Wisemen, like himself, must have observed a new star in the place of the conjunction, which first excited their curiosity, and when it descended into the lower regions of the air and finally disappeared in the West, it recalled the memory of Balaam’s prophecy, and inspired them with the wish to follow its westward course [Kepl. oper. vi. 346].

(6) Kepler’s opinion has been the occasion of an explanation of the Wisemen’s star that eliminates the miraculous from the event. C. Pritchard, in a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society, has collected the following calculations of the times and nearnesses of the conjunctions as verified by the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich. A. U. C. 747, May 20 [29, Pritchard], there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the 20th degree of the sign Pisces, close to the first point of Aries, the part of heaven in which the signs denote the greatest and most noble events. On Oct. 27 [Sept. 29, Pritchard], in the same year, another conjunction of the same planets took place in the 16th degree of Pisces; and on the 12th of November [Dec. 5, Pritchard], a third in the 15th degree of the same sign [Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, ii. 329 ff.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, under “Stern der Weisen”]. With these data, the following theory has been proposed: on May 29, the conjunction would rise 3½ hours before sunrise, and consequently would be seen by the Magi in the East. After a journey of five months from Babylon to Jerusalem [cf. Esd. 7:9], the Magi might perform the route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem in the evening, as is implied, and thus behold the December conjunction in the direction of Bethlehem [1½ hours east of the meridian at sunset, Pritchard]. This explanation of the phenomenon is further confirmed by the following observations: the sacred text nowhere necessitates a miracle; the supposed appearance of the conjunction in the direction of Bethlehem satisfies the plain words of vv. 9, 10, importing its motion from S. E. towards S. W., the direction of Bethlehem; the expression “star” can be used of the united stars of Jupiter and Saturn, because such a phenomenon would be, astrologically considered, the star of the new-born Saviour; Pritchard’s calculation that B. C. 7 the two planets were not in complete conjunction, nor even “within double the apparent diameter of the moon,” does not destroy the astrological significance of the phenomenon; Abarbanel testifies to the Jewish tradition that no conjunction could be of mightier import for his people than that of Jupiter and Saturn, which had been in conjunction A. M. 2365 before the birth of Moses, and the repetition of this phenomenon in his own time [A. D. 1463] he regarded as betokening the approaching birth of the Messias (cf. Münter, Wieseler).

(7) The preceding explanations are open to the following exceptions: even Alf., one of the most zealous adherents of the last theory, grants that if vv. 9. 10, must be understood literally, so that the star led the Wisemen to the spot where was the object of their search, and not merely to Bethlehem in general, the whole incident is miraculous. That a natural star or a comet’s tail (patr.) cannot point out a single house is plain to every observer. To say that the star pointed out the child’s presence by its sudden and unexpected appearance, when the Magi were near his place, does not sufficiently satisfy the words of the evangelist. Besides, not to mention the almost unanimous tradition holding the miraculous nature of the occurrence, the time of the conjunction does not fully agree with the time of the Magi’s visit. Whatever extraordinary natural phenomenon may have occurred, therefore, about the time of Christ’s birth, the literal meaning of the gospel and its traditional interpretation require an additional miraculous appearance of a star in the lower region of the atmosphere.

b. The evangelist reduces the effects of the Magi’s arrival in Jerusalem to three heads: 1. the terror of the persons in the Holy City; 2. the gathering of the chief priests and scribes; 3. the official answer of this assembly.

3. And king Herod hearing this.] 1. The persons terrified by the arrival of the Wisemen are: a.] King Herod; b.] all Jerusalem. a.] That the king should have been terrified is easily explained from his history: B. C. 47, when Herod’s father Antipater, the Idumean, was made Procurator of Judea, Herod himself, then in his fifteenth year, was made Governor of Galilee; B. C. 41 Herod and his brother Phasael were named Tetrarchs of Judea by Antony, but were driven out of the country the next year by the Parthians, who had been invited by Antigonus, the Machabean claimant of the throne of Judea. Herod fled to Rome, and was made king of Judea by the Roman Senate [B. C. 40]. Returning to Palestine, he conquered Jerusalem by the aid of the Roman troops, B. C. 37; after this, his reign may be divided into three periods: B. C. 37–25, the consolidation of his power; B. C. 25–13, the period of prosperity; B. C. 13–4, the time of domestic trouble. Keeping these periods before our mind, we understand the fatal events that marred especially the first and last part of Herod’s reign: A. U. C. 717 he executes 45 Jewish nobles; 719, soon after the Feast of Tabernacles, Aristobulus III., the youthful high priest, is, by Herod’s order, drowned in his bath at Jericho; 720, Joseph, the husband of Herod’s sister Salome, is executed; 722, after the battle at Actium on Sept. 2, Herod attaches himself to the party of Augustus; 724, in spring, Hyrcanus II is executed; 725, towards the end of the year, Herod’s favorite wife, Mariamne, is executed; 726, Alexandra, Herod’s mother-in-law, is put to death; 729, Costobar, the second husband of Salome, is condemned to death. After this begins what is called the period of peace in the reign of Herod; 731, Aristobulus and Alexander, Herod’s sons by the first Mariamne, the Asmonean princess and daughter of Alexandra, are sent to Rome to complete their education; 734, Augustus visits Syria and is welcomed by Herod, who begins the building of the temple in the same year; Aristobulus and Alexander are summoned back from Rome; 740, Antipater, Herod’s son by Doris, the first of his ten wives, accuses Aristobulus and Alexander of conspiracy, and the next year he is sent to Rome; 742, Herod himself accuses his two sons by Mariamne before the court of Augustus, and though he does not obtain their condemnation, he brings another charge against them A. U. C. 744, but is again reconciled with them. Meanwhile the third period of Herod’s reign had begun, in which his domestic troubles embittered the rule of the tyrant beyond description. In 746 the slaves of Aristobulus and Alexander were put to the torture, and gave evidence against their masters; the case was again laid before Augustus, who now authorized Herod to treat his sons according to his wishes. After a trial they were condemned and put to death in Samaria A. U. C. 747, and in the same year a number of Pharisees were executed. Antipater again went to Rome, and Herod made a will [A. U. C. 748], in which he left his kingdom to his absent son. The latter’s secret treachery was, however, detected; he was recalled from Rome, convicted of treason, accused before Augustus, and in his place Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip were named heirs to the divided kingdom, the former two being Herod’s sons by Malthace, and the third by the second Mariamne, daughter of Simon [749]. Towards the end of the year, in March, there happened an insurrection in Jerusalem on account of a Roman eagle that had been fastened over the temple gate and was torn off at the instigation of two celebrated Rabbis. These were burned alive, and the following night an eclipse of the moon was observed, and interpreted by the common people as a manifestation of the divine wrath. Herod, now afflicted by his last illness, went to the baths at Calirrhoe, and from thence to Jericho, whither he summoned the Jewish nobles, giving orders to his sister Salome that all should be put to death after his own decease, so that the land might be put in a state of mourning, worthy of a king. Augustus sent his answer concerning Antipater, who was executed a few days before his father’s death. The tyrant died so long before the Pasch that the week of mourning and the funeral could take place before the Feast, at which Archelaus was present after the obsequies. This sketch suffices to show the nature of Herod’s trouble on hearing the news of the newly born king of the Jews, whose kingdom was, according to the current opinion, both a temporal and a spiritual one, or a restoration of the theocracy.

b.] The trouble of the people of Jerusalem must have been due to various causes: curiosity, anxiety for the welfare of the child, hope of deliverance, piety and gratitude, fear of the troublous times that were expected at the coming of the Messias, anxiety for Herod and his royal house. If we regard the result of the coming of Christ on the Jews, we have reason to believe that a great number, especially of the upper classes, had become fast friends of the Herodians and the Romans, so that the coming of Christ aroused in their hearts a feeling akin to that excited in many of us by the thought of Christ’s second advent.

4. And assembling together.] 2. The evangelist names two classes of persons called together by king Herod in order to be consulted about the particulars concerning the promised Messias: a.] the chief priests; b.] the scribes of the people. Since the same classes of men will recur constantly in the gospel, we briefly explain their standing in the Jewish community, a.] Among the chief priests must be numbered first the high priest proper, who was during the period subsequent to the exile both the religious and the political head of the nation, and though somewhat restricted in his authority by the Greek suzerains and the gerousia, possessed an almost unlimited influence by the fact that his office was hereditary and tenable for life. After the Romans came upon the scene, and still more under the Herodian princes, the principle of life-tenure and inheritance was done away with, and high priests were appointed and deposed at pleasure by Herod and the Romans alike. Between B. C. 37 and A. D. 68 as many as 28 high priests are said to have held office [Joseph. Antiq. XX. x. passim]. These deposed high priests form the second class of persons designated by the chief priests of the gospels. But thirdly, there are chief priests mentioned [Acts 4:6; 19:14; Joseph. B. J. II. xx. 4; IV. ix. 11; V. xiii. 1; VI. ii. 2; Vit. 39] that are not found among the 28 foregoing. These are most probably either members of the high priestly families,—practically the office of high priest was confined to a few privileged families,—[Joseph. B. J. VI. ii. 2], or, what is less probable, they were the heads of the twenty-four courses of priests that had been rearranged after the exile according to the pattern of the division made at the time of David on account of the fact that sixteen of the priestly families traced back their pedigree to Eleazar and eight to Ithamar, both sons of Aaron [cf. Schürer, The Jewish People, etc. II. i. pp. 195–206, Edersheim, The Temple, etc. p. 75 f.]. It should, however, be added that patr. Arn. Reischl, Bisp. Fil. Bleek, Ewald, Sevin adhere undoubtingly to the opinion that chief priests were the heads of the twenty-four priestly courses; Schanz adheres to it doubtingly, while Schürer, Keil, and Weiss reject it.

b.] The Latin “scriba,” the Greek γραμματεύς, and the Hebrew סו̇פֵר are derived respectively from scribo, γράφειν, and סָפַר, to engrave. Though writing was the first occupation of the scribe [cf. Ps. 44:2; Ezech. 9:2], the Hebrew word applied to any one professionally occupied about books, e.g. as writer [Shabbath xii. 5; Nedarim ix. 2; Gittin iii. 1; vii. 2; viii. 8; ix. 8; Baba mezia v. 11; Sanhedrin iv. 3; v. 5] or as bookbinder [Pesachim iii. 1]. The Greek expression signifies “one learned in Scripture,” “a learned man,” “a literary man.” Men of this description were found already in David’s household [3 Kings 8:17; 20:25; 1 Par. 18:16; cf. Cicero in Ver. Ac. v. c. 59], and their chief duty was to keep an account in writing of the most important public events, and to guard the public records. That their chief occupation should be the study and explanation of the law is self-evident. Hence we meet frequently the names νομικοί or “jurists” [Mt. 22:35; Lk. 7:30; 10:25; 11:45 f., 52; 14:3], νομοδιδάσκαλοι or “teachers of the law” [Lk. 5:17; Acts 5:34], “expounders of the ancestral laws” [Joseph. Antiq. XVII. vi. 2; XVIII. iii. 5], “sophists” [Joseph. B. J. I. xxxiii. 2; II. xvii. 8. 9], “learned in sacred literature” [Joseph. B. J. VI. v. 3]. It is also on this account that in the Mishna the expression “scribes,” סוֹפְרִים, is applied only to the jurists of former generations, who had already become an authority in the times of the Mishna, while the contemporary jurists are always named חֲכָמִים. This meaning of the word “scribe” explains also the extraordinary respect paid to the men of this class by the common people, as is shown by the titles of honor bestowed on them: רַבִּי [my master], and the still more honorable רַבָּן or רַבּו̇ן, an enhanced form of רַב [Rabban, or Rabbon, from Rab]. In the New Testament we find the expressions “Rabboni” [Mk. 10:51; Jn. 20:16], “lord” [Mt. 8:2, 6, 8, 21, 25, etc.], “master” [in the sense of teacher. Mt. 8:19; and passim], “master” [in the sense of lord, Lk. 5:5; 8:24, 45; 9:33, 49; 17:13], “father” [Mt. 23:9], “master” [in the sense of guide, Mt. 23:10]. The honor paid to the scribes by their fellow-citizens was not confined to mere titles; the reverence for the scribe exceeded the reverence for the father, and bordered upon the reverence for God, so that the scribe could claim with impunity the chief seats in the synagogue and the greetings in the market-place [Aboth iv. 12; Kerithoth vi. 9; Baba mezia ii. 11; Mt. 23:6, 7; Mk. 12:38, 39; Lk. 11:43; 20:46].

The legal employment of the scribes may be reduced to the following heads: [a] They cared for the theoretic development of the law, carrying on the process of systematizing it in the form of oral discussions. It is owing to this circumstance that they became practically legislators, though they had never been formally appointed as such; especially, after the destruction of the temple, their judgment sufficed to determine what was valid law. [b] The scribes also taught the law; owing to this circumstance we find them surrounded by numerous disciples, who either by way of question and answer, or by repetition, or again by attentive listening, endeavor to memorize not merely the teaching, but also the very words of the masters, at whose feet they are seated, [c] A third employment of the scribes was to pass sentence in the court of justice. Though in the small local centres the courts were composed of laymen, it may be reasonably supposed that those persons should be selected for this employment that were distinguished for the knowledge of the law.

The labors of the scribes, whether educational or judicial, were to be strictly gratuitous, as we may infer both from the Mishna [Aboth iv. 5; i. 13; Bechoroth iv. 6; Aboth ii. 2] and the Scripture [Ex. 23:8; Deut. 16:9]. But that this principle of non-remuneration was not strictly adhered to by the scribes in their labor of teaching is plain from the New Testament [Mt. 10:8, 10; 23:5; Mk. 12:40, 38; Lk. 10:7; 16:14; 20:46, 47; 1 Cor. 9:3–18; 2 Cor. 11:8, 9; Phil. 4:10–18; Gal. 6:6].

Nor must it be supposed that the scribes confined their activity to Judea only, though here was their centre of operations till about 70 A. D.; we meet them in Galilee [Lk. 5:17], in the dispersion, and Jewish epitaphs in Rome of the later imperial period testify to the presence of scribes in the capital of western civilization, while the Babylonian scribes were the authors of the Talmud in the fifth and sixth centuries. Again, though after the separation between the Pharisees and the Sadducees most scribes adhered to the Pharisaic party, the Sadducees too could point to their eminent lawyers, as must be naturally expected [Mk. 2:16; Lk. 5:30; Acts 23:9].

The scribes exercised their influence not merely over all classes, all countries, and all departments of the law, but they controlled also the narrative and didactic parts of Sacred Scripture. Religious history and dogma as well as law were developed in their schools, and the collected results of both may be called the Haggada, as opposed to the Halacha or the rule of conduct. By reason of their proficiency in both legal and dogmatic learning, the scribes were qualified above others to deliver the lectures in the synagogues and to be members of the Sanhedrin cf. Mt. 2:4; 20:18; 21:15; 28:1–4; Mk. 10:33; 11:18, 27; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31; Lk. 22:2, 66; 23:10]. The care of the text of Scripture as such was naturally joined to the preceding employments. Since Herod called only the chief priests and the scribes, omitting the ancients of the people, the gathering cannot have been that of the Sanhedrin. Herod merely asks where Christ should be born, supposing that the time of the birth had really arrived.

5. But they said to him.] 3. The prophecy cited by the chief priests and scribes is that of Mich. 5:2 with the following differences: The prophet has a.] Ephrata for the evangelist’s “land of Juda”; b.] thousands for princes; c.] “thou art little” for “thou art not least.”

a.] The first of these discrepancies is of no importance, since Ephrata [fruitfulness] is nothing but another name for Bethlehem [house of bread]; the evangelist prefers the addition “land of Juda,” in order to signify that he refers to Bethlehem in Juda, not to Bethlehem in the tribe of Zabulon [Jos. 19:15], while the prophet adds Ephrata to place the joyful birth of Jesus in opposition to the sorrowful birth of Benjamin, which happened near Ephrata [Gen. 35:19; 48:7].

b.] Nor is the second discrepancy between the prophet and the evangelist of much importance: the prophet alludes to the division of the tribes into thousands, probably of fighting men, each thousand having its separate head [cf. Num. 1:16; 10:4; Jos. 22:21, 30; 1 Kings 10:19; 23:23; 1 Par. 23:11]; in the consonant text the same Hebrew word signifies both a thousand and the ruler of a thousand. The evangelist has taken this second meaning of the word, rendering it “princes.”

c.] The third discrepancy between prophet and evangelist presents more formidable difficulties: the former asserts Bethlehem’s littleness, the latter denies it. [1] It is not true that the Hebrew word employed by the prophet means both great and little, and that it must signify “great” in Jer. 48:4; Soph. 3:7; even if this were true, we could not in this manner harmonize Mt. and Mich., since the prophecy, viewed in this light, ought to read “thou art too great to be among the thousands” [against Pococke on the Porta Mosis, Works, i. 134 f.]. [2] The discrepancy cannot be solved by means of the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Septuagint, and a Latin [August. De civit. Dei, xviii. 30] version of the prophecy; for the rendering “it is little that thou shouldst be” does not establish the desired harmony. Besides, the Hebrew word employed by the prophet never has the foregoing meaning, while Is. 49:6 and 2 Kings 7:19 express that idea in another way. [3] The discrepancy disappears satisfactorily in the following manner: the words of both prophet and evangelist are true, the former describing Bethlehem as it is in the eyes of men, the latter viewing it as it is in the sight of God; besides, both meanings are expressed by the prophet, the one, asserting Bethlehem’s worldly littleness, directly, the other, concerning Bethlehem’s divine greatness, indirectly and by antithesis, so that the evangelist is justified in expressing directly what the prophet had expressed by way of contrast; finally, it must be noted that St. Matthew does not intend to give the words of the prophet as found in Sacred Scripture, but as uttered by the chief priests and scribes whom Herod had consulted, and who answered foreign inquirers not acquainted with the old name Ephrata, or the division into thousands, or the mystery of a Davidic Messias [cf. Christ in Type and Prophecy, i. p. 276]. With Chrys. we may reflect on the joy and consolation the Wisemen must have experienced when they discovered that the place of the new-born king whom they had come to worship held such a prominent and definite position in the sacred prophecies.

7. Then Herod privately calling.] c. In the conduct of Herod we must note the following particulars: 1. He calls the Magi privately, so as not to divulge the news they had brought among the people, in order to accomplish his wicked designs more easily. 2. Herod “learned diligently” of the Wisemen “the time of the star which appeared to them.” The tyrant does not seem to have “diligently inquired” of the Wisemen [Chrys. op. impf. Grimm], which would require a different preposition in the Greek text, and might have rendered the Magi suspicious of the king’s real designs; he only listened attentively to what the strange visitors in their simplicity said about the time, i. e. the length of the time, during which the star had appeared to them [cf. Euth. Theoph. Keil, Weiss]. 3. Herod sends the Wisemen to Bethlehem with the monition to inquire diligently after the child; his jealousy does not allow him to call the child by his royal name.

9. Who having heard the king.] d. The evangelist describes the relation of the Wisemen to the infant Christ under two heads: 1. Their immediate guidance by the star; 2. their behavior in presence of the child. 1. The opinion that the Wisemen must have left Jerusalem by night on account of the visibility of the star [Weiss, Keil, Schanz] has been implicitly rejected where we maintained that the star could not be a merely natural phenomenon [Theoph. gloss, ordin. Haym. Anselm.]. The opinion of Chrys. that the Magi entered Bethlehem at bright noonday is therefore not at all improbable. The words “the star … went before them” do not necessarily imply that it showed them the way to Bethlehem: the road from Jerusalem to the city of David could be found without a miracle, and the Greek expression προάγειν τινά often has the meaning of “arriving before some one” [Mt. 14:22; 21:31; 26:32; 28:7; Mk. 6:45; 14:28; 16:7], so that the star may have moved from east to west “until it came and stood over where the child was,” while the Magi journeyed from north to south. That this is the true meaning of the passage follows also from the close connection between vv. 10 and 11; for the Magi “seeing the star rejoiced … and entering into the house.” Here the entrance into the house, not the journey in the direction of the star, appears to be the immediate consequence of its perception. The recourse to a merely internal guidance is not necessary. We need not draw attention to the word “house” used by the evangelist; had the Holy Family still lived in the traditional grotto, St. Matthew would not have spoken of their “house.” The exceeding great joy of the Wisemen at the sight of the star shows that they must not have seen their heavenly monitor for some time previous.

2. α. The evangelist seems to imply that at the arrival of the Magi, St. Joseph was absent, for they found the child with Mary his mother. Joseph’s absence was well calculated to prepare the visitors for the mystery of the child’s virginal conception and birth. β. It may be asked what is meant by the words “and falling down, they adored him”; did the Magi worship the child as their God, or did they pay him a merely royal homage? The Greek word προσκυνεῖν signifies both the homage paid to superiors or kings [Hdt. i. 119, 134; vii. 136; Xen. Cyr. 8, 3, 14; Gen. 27:29; 33:3, 6, 7; 37:7; 42:6; etc.] and the adoration due to God [Hdt. ii. 121; Ex. 4:31; 12:27; 20:5; 23:24; 24:1; 32:8; Lev. 26:1; Num. 25:2; Mt. 4:10; Lk. 4:8; Jn. 4:21; Acts 8:27; etc.]. That the word means in the present case divine worship may be inferred from the manner in which the Magi had been induced to visit Bethlehem, and from the offerings they presented there. For though gold was offered to kings, myrrh to men, it was to God alone that frankincense was presented [Iren. adv. hær. III. ix. 2; Orig. c. Cels. i. 60; Hil. Juvenc. 1. i. v. 285; Jer. Ambr. in Lk. 1. ii. n. 44; Chrys. op. imp. Leo, serm. 33; Maxim. hom. xxii. 26; Prudent, xii. de Epiph. v. 33; Chrysol. serm. 158, 160; Sedat de Epiph.; Greg. hom. in Evang. x. n. 6. Cf. patr. diss. 27, p. 348.] It is true that a few writers see the child’s sacerdotal character typified by the offering of frankincense [Maxim. hom. xxi.; Bed. Serm. de Magis; Schegg]; that St. Bernard, who commonly abounds in the mystical sense, gives a strictly prosaic explanation of the three gifts, seeing in the gold a relief of the child’s poverty, in the myrrh a preservative for his feehle limbs, and in the frankincense a remedy against the fetid odors of the grotto; and it is also true that some writers doubt whether the Magi understood the mystic meaning of their offerings [cf. op. imp. Mald. Schanz]; but these reasons are not of sufficient weight against the foregoing patristic testimony, to render our position untenable.

And having received an answer.] e. The Greek text does not necessarily imply that they had asked God for light [cf. 2:22; Lk. 2:26; Acts 10:22; Heb. 7:5; 11:7]; Theoph. and Euth. interpret the passage in the sense of being warned or instructed by God. The evangelist does not state whether the answer came directly from God [Jer. Pasch. Sylv.], or through the mediation of an angel [Chrys. Thom. Haym. Bar.]. In any case, the communication was a new proof to the Wisemen of the truly divine character of their previous directions; at the same time, it formed as it were the climax of God’s dealings with them: first, he spoke to them by means of the star, then by means of the prophecy and its lawful expounders, finally, by means of an angel or even directly, without any medium [Theoph. Euth.]. That the Wisemen thus avoided the return to Herod, a circumstance which could hardly be accounted for by merely natural means, was a warning to the tyrant that his godless endeavors against the new-born king of the Jews would be fruitless [Jans.].

Antiq. Jos. Antiq. Josephus, Antiquitates, or Antiquities.

Schürer Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 1890; ii. 1886; English transl. Edinburgh, ii. 1885; i. 1890.

Schegg Schegg, Evangelium nach Matthäus übersetz, u. erklärt München, 1856–58.

Aug. St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo 395–430; here belong his “de sermone in monte,” ll. 2; “de consensu evangelist.” ll. 4; “quæst. evangel.” ll. 2; quæst. 27 in evang. Matt.; Migne, patr. lat. 34, 35.

Epiph. St. Epiphanius, bishop in Cyprus 368–403; cat. græc.; ef. Migne, patr. græc. 41–43.

Grimm Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

Knab. Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

Fab. Faber Stapulensis or Lefévre d’Etaples, 1455–1537; his commentaries were placed on the Index “donee corrigantur.”

Pasch. Radbert Paschase, a French monk, died about 865; Migne, patr. lat. 120.

Thom. St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

Tost. Aphonsus Tostatus or Abulensis, died 1445; his 4 vols. fol. of “quæstiones” on the first gospel belong here.

Mald. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

Jans. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

Bar. Sebast. Barradas, died 1615; here belong his “commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam,” tt. 4.

Lap. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

Epiph. St. Epiphanius, bishop in Cyprus 368–403; cat. græc.; ef. Migne, patr. græc. 41–43.

Jer. St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

Orig. Origen, 185–354; only tt. 10–17 on Matthew xii. 36–xxiii. 53 are left in Greek; the comment. on the following part of the first gospel, up to xviii. 13, is preserved in Latin; Migne, patr. græc. 13, 836–1800. Jer. relates that he read 25 vols, of Origen’s commentaries on Matthew, and as many homilies, together with his “commaticum interpretationis genus.”

Thom. St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

patr. Patrizi, de evangeliis, Friburgi, 1853.

Epiph. St. Epiphanius, bishop in Cyprus 368–403; cat. græc.; ef. Migne, patr. græc. 41–43.

Chrys. St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople 397–407; he wrote 90 [or 91] homilies on the first gospel; Migne, patr. græc. 57, 58.

patr. Patrizi, de evangeliis, Friburgi, 1853.

gloss, ord. Glossa ordinaria, by Walafridus Strabus, who died in 849.

Pasch. Radbert Paschase, a French monk, died about 865; Migne, patr. lat. 120.

Theoph. Theophylact, archbishop in Bulgaria about 1071; his commentary is in a manner a synopsis of Chrys.; Migne, patr. græc. 123.

Chrys. St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople 397–407; he wrote 90 [or 91] homilies on the first gospel; Migne, patr. græc. 57, 58.

Jans Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

Mald Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

Sylv. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

patr. Patrizi, de evangeliis, Friburgi, 1853.

Schanz Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

Fil. Fillion, Evangile selon St. Matthieu, Paris, 1878.

Knab. Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

Pasch. Radbert Paschase, a French monk, died about 865; Migne, patr. lat. 120.

Thom. St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

Mald. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

op. imp. “opus imperfectum” consists of 53 homilies on part of the first gospel; formerly the work was found among those of Chrys., but the author must have been an Arian of the sixth or seventh century; Migne, patr. græc. 56, 611–946.

arm. Armenian; fifth and sixth century.

Knab. Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

Schanz Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

Knab. Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

Schaff Philip Schaff, in the International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. i. New York, 1888.

Alf. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Boston, 1886.

Weiss das Matthäusevangelium und seine Lucasparallelen, Halle, 1876.

De Wette Kurze Erklärung d. Evangelinms Matthäi, Leipzig, 1836.

Alf. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Boston, 1886.

Tert. Tertullian, about 200; Migne, patr. lat. 1, 2; note especially his comment, on the Our Father.

Chrys. St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople 397–407; he wrote 90 [or 91] homilies on the first gospel; Migne, patr. græc. 57, 58.

Theoph. Theophylact, archbishop in Bulgaria about 1071; his commentary is in a manner a synopsis of Chrys.; Migne, patr. græc. 123.

Knab. Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

Schanz Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

Ambr. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374–397; Migne, patr. lat. 14–17.

Jer. St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

Rab. Rabanus Maurus, 776–856; his “comment. in Matt. ll. octo” must here be mentioned; Migne, patr. lat. 107, 727–1156.

Pasch. Radbert Paschase, a French monk, died about 865; Migne, patr. lat. 120.

Bed. Venerable Bede, about 731; here belongs his “in Matt. evang. expos. ll. 4.”; Migne, patr. lat. 92; the writer follows Jer. Ambr. Aug. op. imp.

Euth. Euthymius Zigabenus, about 1116; he follows Chrys., but has also matter of his own; Migne, patr. græc. 129.

Theoph. Theophylact, archbishop in Bulgaria about 1071; his commentary is in a manner a synopsis of Chrys.; Migne, patr. græc. 123.

Thom. St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

Tost. Aphonsus Tostatus or Abulensis, died 1445; his 4 vols. fol. of “quæstiones” on the first gospel belong here.

Dion. Dionysius the Carthusian, 1403–1473; cf. his “enarrat. in quatuor evangelistas.”

Mald. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

Jans. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

Lap. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

Grimm Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

Schürer Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 1890; ii. 1886; English transl. Edinburgh, ii. 1885; i. 1890.

Sylv. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

Grimm Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

Keil Commentar über d. Evangelium d. Matth., Leipzig, 1877.

Mald. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

Lap. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

Ed. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 3d ed. London, 1886.