Dead Sea; and long before any pursuit could have been made he would have been far enough on his way to have been wholly out of Herod's jurisdiction. That Herod would ultimately trace the Magi to Nazareth was doubtless true, and was the danger against which the warning was given, and on account of which the flight was directed. But the difficulties would be great and the progress slow in tracing the family in a departure suddenly and secretly made for an unknown destination. If it be asked why they fled to Egypt rather than to Syria or another country, the answer is that it was the nearest country in which their safety would be assured; the country in which Herod's influence was least felt, and whose rulers were most hostile to him and his race; for Syria was, in its governmental relations as a part of the Roman Empire, most nearly related to the dominions of Herod, which were afterward absorbed by it, and the region beyond Jordan was governed by rulers of the Herodian family. It may also be suggested, that while it was not with the direct and only purpose of fulfilling prophecy, but rather in accordance with the necessity and fitness of things that the direction was given, there nevertheless seems to have been in that direction a reference to the prophecy, and the typical fact of Israel's former residence in Egypt, and the prediction that of Messiah it should be said, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son."

When in Egypt Joseph was informed, in a dream, of the death of Herod, and directed to go "to the land of Israel," an expression which in its popular and distinctive meaning indicates Samaria and Galilee. Arising, he with his family came on his way toward the land of Israel. But having heard that Archelaus was exercising the kingly office over Judea, he was afraid to go there, (that is, to pass through Judea,) and was instructed in a dream "to turn aside to the parts of Galilee;" that is, he was instructed to take the route on the other side of the Dead Sea, east of the dominions of Archelaus. The country through which he was thus to pass was under the same tetrarchy or government as was Galileethat of Herod Antipas-and was properly named "the parts (of the tetrarchy) of Galilee." By this route, which was beyond the reach of any interference from the cruel Archelaus, he could pursue his journey in security under the milder government of

a

the tetrarch of Galilee, his own country, until he again reached his own home at Nazareth. On this theory, the narratives of the two evangelists are capable of a complete reconciliation, and supplement each other, so that we have the fact of Christ's birth at Bethlehem clearly vindicated from the aspersions cast upon it by reason of seeming conflict, and it can be seen also why, notwithstanding this fact, he could yet be "called a Nazarene."

The precise date so distinctly enunciated by the evangelist as this day" was doubtless well known to the writers of the Gospels. It is now matter of controversy. It is even disputed among writers as to what was the season of the year in which it took place. Until about the middle of the fourth century the Eastern Church had regarded the sixth of January as the day, but the Western Church had observed the twenty-fifth of December. That most eminent prelate of the Greek Church, Chrysostom, asserts that through the records of the taxing preserved at Rome, the twenty-fifth day of December had been long known as the proper day to the Christians of that city, and was from the close of the fourth century commemorated by both East and West as the birthday of Jesus.

Other sources of information seem to furnish confirmation of this traditionary view. Thus it has been found that the priestly course of Abia, of which Zacharias the father of John was a ministering priest, performed its functions during the months of October and April. This would give as the period of John's birth the month of June or December. Six months later would give for the birth of Jesus, in the former case December, in the latter June. Climatic conditions and the pastoral habits of the country must be allowed to give the preponderance to December. They render it almost certain that the traditionary time is nearly, if not altogether, accurate. "In the month of May vegetation in that country attains its greatest perfection, and then begins to decline rapidly for want of rain. In June, in the region round about Jerusalem, herbage becoming parched, the wandering Arabs begin to move northward with their flocks." In the consideration of this question the climatic observations have been too frequently taken in a more northern latitude than that of Bethlehem and Jerusalem, as at Aleppo and Damascus, in the region of Lebanon and "snowy Hermon."

Hence some have concluded that the month of December is too cold and wet to answer the conditions required by what is narrated of this event. But the average temperature of the month of December, during four years from 1851, was 54° 5'. The average for the entire winter season is from 50° to 531°, more than 20° above freezing-point. During this month the earth is fully clothed with rich verdure. Wheat, barley, and various kinds of pulse are still sown. In market are sugar-cane, cauliflowers, cabbages, radishes, lettuce, lentils, etc. Plowing still continues. The sowing of grain has already begun. Between the middle of December and the middle of February there is usually an interval of several weeks of dry weather. The period about Christmas is often one of the loveliest periods of the whole year, and is favorable for feeding the flocks in the open fields. At Bethlehem, which is six miles south of Jerusalem, and much less elevated, and especially in the neighboring valleys, the climate is still more mild. It is further to be noted that in the summer time the shepherds were accustomed to leave their homes and go from the neighborhood of the cities and villages, and, as the pastoral Arabs now do, drive their flocks far off into the wilderness, and there remain during the summer months. Upon the coming of winter they returned to their homes. It is perfectly in accordance with these facts and customs that in December the shepherds should be in the fields near the city, and in the thickly populated country in the region of Jerusalem. The fact that they were out during the night makes no difficulty, nor creates any improbability against December, even if we grant that they were unsheltered by huts or booths. In the summer, especially during the parching heats of June, they would have sought with their flocks the deep shades of the mountains or the wooded pasture lands of the wilderness.

We may now present a chronological synopsis of the evangelical history up to the period of the return from Egypt, to show how naturally and how fully the Gospel history harmo nizes with facts known from other sources.

If we take a day in the latter part of December, say for definiteness, and to harmonize with tradition, the 25th day of December, in the year of Rome 749-the fifth before our common era or anno Domini-as the date of the birth of Jesus, the succeeding events arrange themselves thus:

During the first week must be placed the visit of the shepherds. The first of January, 750, (or before A. D. 4,) would witness the circumcision at Bethlehem; forty days after the birth, or February 3, would be the time for the purification in the temple at Jerusalem; during the next ten days, or by the 13th of February, they would easily reach their home in Nazareth. If now we suppose that the Magi reached Jerusalem five days after the departure of Joseph, and that the star had appeared to them simultaneously with the birth of Jesus, we have now a period of forty-five days, during which they might easily have traveled from any country which has ever been suggested as their home. Allow them to have remained one day at Jerusalem, and thence to have consumed five days in traveling the distance from Jerusalem to Nazareth, and we should find their visit to have occurred about February 14, an interval made memorable as well by the slaughter of the "innocents" as by their journey. Spending one day and night at Nazareth, the morning of the 16th would find the Magi on their return, and long before dawn of the next day, the 17th, Joseph himself would have hastily fled with all speed toward the fords of the Jordan and the land of Egypt. The death of Herod took place not later than the first week in April, so that Joseph had about six weeks for the journey to Egypt and residence there; and allowing that Joseph was immediately notified of Herod's death, and at once returned, he would again reach Nazareth about the first of May. Thus, then, 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 during which it would seem that they must have occurred. For, according to the very best authorities, the birth of Christ must have been about this period; certainly not earlier, nor could it have been much later, since Herod's death is the absolute limit for the close of this series of events, and this happened, as stated, in the beginning of April, A. U. C. 750, or ante A. D. 4.

It will be seen that in discussing this chronology no reference has been made to the "decree of Augustus-that all the world should be enrolled or taxed," and Luke's statement with reference to the governorship of Cyrenius, because for our purpose

1

such reference is useless. In the narration of Luke such mention was at least appropriate and pertinent, if not absolutely necessary. By this reference it was not so much the purpose and intention of Luke to fix a date (since that was fixed by other statements) as to state the reason why Joseph went to Bethlehem, and to prevent error in the reference to the occurrence; an error, indeed, to which his citing the "governorship of Cyrenius" might naturally lead if the citation were not qualified. His intention, in fact, was to prevent the time of Joseph's going up to Bethlehem from being confounded with the time when the enrollment was actually made by Cyrenius. He simply states, therefore, that a decree for the taxing (or enrollment) had been issued by Augustus, and that in compliance with that decree Joseph went to his own city. He then adds parenthetically, "This (that is, not the decree, for the difference in genders of the avrn and doyua forbids that, but the) enrollment or taxing, namely the first, was made when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Thus the inaccuracy alleged against Luke wholly disappears, since it is known from Josephus that nine years later, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, an actual enrollment and taxation, the first recorded, was made in Judea, the precise fact which Luke states. In other words, this enrollment or taxing, the first on record for Judea as a Roman province, was made in accordance with and by authority of that decree of Augustus by virtue of which Joseph had been compelled to go up to Bethlehem; but the enrollment was not actually made at the time of Joseph's visit, the decree not having been enforced until the period when Cyrenius came as governor of Syria. That the enrollment was not actually made during Joseph's sojourn at Bethlehem is plainly inferable from the fact, that if it had existed it would have been known to Herod, who by means of the registry could have secured the information necessary to find, and thus destroy, this last scion of the Davidic house. Reasons both for the issuing of the decree and the suspension of its execution may be found in the loss of favor, and subsequent, almost immediate, restoration to favor of Herod with Augustus, which are known to have taken place about this time.

By this interpretation-an interpretation in perfect consonance with the facts of history as elsewhere set forth-all that is apparent