interpretation, however, are liable to the objection that the whole of the passage cannot without violence to the construction be made to apply literally to the birth of Christ. This difficulty is avoided by the explanation given by Dr. Kennicot; and indeed the solution afforded by this distinguished Hebraist, is entitled to the approbation of every candid inquirer. He maintains, and in this interpretation he is followed by Dr. Owen and other eminent divines, that these verses of Isaiah contain two distinct and literal prophecies; the first relating to Christ, the second to the prophet's son. The former, (included in vv. 13, 14, 15.) which predicts the birth of the Messiah, is addressed in the plural to the house of David, to assure them that, however discouraging the appearances of the present certainly were, they might look forward with confidence to the strict fulfilment of the promises made to their ancestors. And this, let it be observed, is the part which is cited by St. Matthew, as being alone suited to his purpose. The latter, that is, the prophecy expressed in the 16th verse, is applicable to the son of Isaiah, whose name was Shear-jashub, and is addressed to Ahaz (in the singular), to operate as a consolation to him in the danger to which he was then exposed by the invasion of his dominions by the kings of Israel and Syria.

Such then is the explanation of what has been termed by some an insuperable difficulty; nor does it involve any thing inconsistent with the nature of the Jewish prophecies, or with the most correct views of the divine conduct.3

See a sermon of Dr. Kennicot on Isaiah vii. 13-16. preached before the University of Oxford, and published 1765, and which has now be

come scarce.

2 Whitby in locum, Owen's Modes of Quotation by the Evangelists, Abp. Newcome in loc.

3 When there is a concurrence of opinion between persons who are in other respects decided opponents, we may certainly view this circumstance as a strong confirmation of the justness of that opinion. Under this impression, I may adduce Mr. Michael Dodson, whose translation of Isaiah was published several years after that of Bishop Lowth, as coinciding (except in one or two particulars) with the explanation given by Dr. Kennicot of the prophecy in question. It has been a subject of dispute whether the word, here signifies a virgin in its strict In the Septuagint it is translated magévos; but in the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as appears from the remains of Origen's Hexapla, it is rendered by vavis. It is plain by the use of the article both in the Hebrew and the Greek, that the word, as it occurs in Isaiah, is intended to be emphatical; and it is remarkable that the same term by is to be found only twice more in the Old Testament, and in both cases (as Dr. Owen observes) it denotes a particular and disVOL. XXXIII. NO. LXV. D

sense.

By those, however, who reject every interpretation inconsistent with a strict unity of sense, or who think that no part of the passage can admit of a literal application to the advent of Christ, the words in question may be regarded as accommoduted by the Evangelist to the important fact he is there recording. And on this supposition, it will scarcely be denied that nothing could be more likely to attract the attention or to influence the minds of the Jews, for whose use this Gospel was more particularly designed, than a frequent reference to those writings, which they acknowleged to be inspired, and which formed an essential part of their devotional exercises.

The second passage which demands our notice occurs in the sixth verse of the second chapter: "And thou, Bethlehem in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda ; for out of thee shall come a Governor who shall rule my people Israel." It is admitted by our adversaries that this prophecy is applicable to our Saviour; and the objection therefore, which they here advance, is not derived from this source, but is founded on the great difference which subsists between the text of St. Matthew, and that of the Septuagint and the original Hebrew. It is true, indeed, that in the first part of the verse, where St. Matthew uses the expression Bethlehem in the land of Judah, the Septuagint has this variation; Bethlehem, house of Ephratah. No importance, however, can be attached to this circumstance, as it is rendered abundantly evident by a comparison of different texts in the Old Testament, that the terms2 Juda and

tinguished virgin. In Genesis xxiv. 43. it refers to Rebekah, before she was married to Isaac; and in Exodus ii. 8. to Miriam, the sister of Moses. In addition to these remarks, it must not be forgotten that when Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, and Irenæus in his third book against Heresies, accuse the Jews of corrupting this passage in Isaiah (vii. 14.) they are speaking of those versions which translate the word my by varian instead of napolvos.

This citation is taken from the prophecies of Micah, v. 2.

Hebrew.

ואתה בית לחם אפרתה צעיר להיות באלפי יהודה ממך לי יצא להיות מעשל בישראל:

Septuagint.

Καὶ σὺ, Βηθλέεμ, οἶκος τοῦ Ἐφραθὰ, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ μαι ἐξελεύσεται, τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.

St. Matthew, ii. 6.

Καὶ σὺ, Βηθλεέμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου, τὸν Ἰσραήλ.

Thus in Genesis (xxxv. 91.) we meet with the following passage: And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephratak, which is Bethlehem." The same place is called Bethlehem Judah in Judges.xvii.

Ephratah, as they occur in the instances before us, only designate the same place. A similar observation may be applied to the term princes here used by the Evangelist, which is in truth equivalent to the corresponding word thousands in the Septuagint. There still exists a difference of more consequence; for the language of Micah, "And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, &e." appears to be directly contradicted by the quotation of St. Matthew," And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda, &c." This is unquestionably an inconsistency which requires to be reconciled; and we accordingly find that the judgment of the learned has not been exercised in vain. The first mode of solving this apparent difficulty is that proposed by Dr. Owen, who considers it as evident from the Arabic version, and from Jérome's Commentary on St. Matthew, that the Septuagint originally contained the particle in this place. This supposition is certainly countenanced by the reading now extant in four Greek' Manuscripts, μoxyorós; and more particularly by the evidence afforded by several of the early Fathers. It is certainly not a little remarkable that in quoting this identical verse, the words of Justin Martyr are oudaus axiorn; those of Tertullian, non minima; of Origen, oux yoσtos; and of Cyprian, non exigua. Hence it has been concluded by some critics that the negative particle (5) non, nequaquam, was by some accident obliterated from the original Hebrew, and that the Greek was afterwards altered to render it coincident with the former.

But there is another method of obviating the present objection, more simple, and more satisfactory; and that is, by reading the first clause of the prophecy in Micah as an interrogation. "Art thou too little to be among the leaders of Judah?" This

7. "And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah, &c." Again, in the book of Ruth, (i. 1.) Elimelech, the hus band of Naomi, is called a man of Bethlehem Judah; but afterwards in the 4th chapter of the same book, when Boaz his brother married Ruth, and purchased Elimelech's inheritance, he is thus addressed, "Do thou worthily in Ephratah." In the 1st book of Samuel, Jesse is called the Ephrathite of Bethlehem-judah.

The thousands of Judah, as Dr. Whitby observes in his note on this passage, and the princes of Judah, have precisely the same signification. The tribes of Israel were divided into thousands, and over each thousand was placed a prince or governor; and therefore among the princes and among the thousands are synonymous expressions.

1

The Barbarini Ms., Pachomian Ms. Laud. K. 96, Ms. in Brit. Mus. 1. B. 2, and Ms. in New College, Oxford.

mode of considering the passage, agreeably to the idiom of most languages, implies the negation which we find in St. Matthew, and prevents the necessity of supposing any alteration in the original text.'

In the fifteenth verse of the same chapter of St. Matthew, we meet with the following citation from the prophecies of Hosea: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. The verse in Hosea, in which these words are found, stands thus; "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Our opponents here allege that this language manifestly relates to the deliverance of the Israelites from their state of slavery under the Egyptians, long antecedent to the time of the prophet, and therefore can have no connexion with the event to which it is applied by the sacred historian. In reply, however, we may observe that some divines regard Israel in the original passage as the type of Christ, and in this case, the application is made with the greatest propriety to the antitype, in whom the declaration was strictly accomplished. Nor is it any objection to our considering the language of Hosea on this occasion as prophetical, that it refers to a fact which had happened long before; for, as Dr. Owen well observes," how frequently are David and Solomon introduced in Scripture as types of the Messiah, and that even long after they were departed out of the world!"

I am perfectly aware that this explanation will not satisfy those who deny the existence of types and antitypes, as well as of primary and secondary meanings, in the inspired writings. By such persons the second mode of interpreting the quotations of the New Testament before referred to, will be found easy and natural; and indeed in the present instance it is preferred

This solution has been adopted by Grotius, Olearius, Bp. Pearce, Dr. Campbell, and Abp. Newcome.

2 This quotation is taken from Hosea, xi. 1.

Hebrew.

וממצרים קראתי לבני:

Septuagint.

Ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ.

St. Matthew, ii. 15.

Ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.

The variation of the LXX. in this place from the original cannot now be accounted for, except by admitting with Dr. Owen, that the text has been corrupted; for it is observable that the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, exactly coincide with the Hebrew and St. Matthew.

by many of those who consider both methods as equally ad missible. It is the remark of Bishop Chandler and of Archbishop Newcome, that the phrase that it might be fulfilled, is sometimes used in a more popular manner, when any striking similarity is intended to be pointed out between a prophecy in the Old Testament and a fact recorded in the New. "Its meaning here is (observes the learned prelate last mentioned), that the words which Hosea uses of the Israelites, were applicable to an event in the life of Jesus Christ: and being verified anew in the transaction here related, the Evangelist accommodates them to his present purpose."

DEUXIEME INSCRIPTION du Voyage de FR. CAILLIOU à l'Oasis de Thèbes.

*Ιούλιος Δημήτριος, Στρατηγὸς Οάσεως Θηβαΐδος.

Τοῦ πεμφθέντος μοι διατάγματος ὑπὸ κυρίου ἡγέμονος Τιβερίου Ιουλίου ̓Αλεξάνδρον τὸ ἀντίγραφον ὑμῖν ὑπέταξα ἵν ̓ εἰδότες ἀπολαύητε τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν.

Whitby in locum, Owen's Modes of Quotation, Bp. Chandler's Vindication of Christianity, Bp. Pearce and Abp. Newcome in loc. It may be proper here to notice the objection of Dr. Williams and other writers, that the flight of Joseph with Mary and Jesus into Egypt, cannot be explained so as to render it at all consistent with the other parts of the sacred narrative. It could not take place from Bethlehem, they allege, because St. Luke informs us that after continuing there forty days, the infant Christ was taken to Jerusalem to be presented in the temple, and was thence carried to Nazareth; nor could it be from the latter place, they affirm, because the slaughter of the infants executed by the command of Herod did not extend so far, as it was confined to "Bethlehem and all the coasts thereof." The whole of this difficulty, however, is at once removed by supposing, (and there is every thing to favor the supposition,) that the stay of Joseph at Nazareth was short, and that after arranging his affairs he returned to Bethlehem with Mary and Jesus, where they might have lived a considerable time before the arrival of the wise men. The circumstances, indeed, stated by the Evangelist, lead us to believe that an interval of some length took place between the birth of Christ and the actual appearance of the wise men. On the return from Egypt it was Joseph's design, we are informed by St. Luke, to go to Judæa (i. e. we may infer, to Bethlehem), but in consequence of the divine intimation, he went to Nazareth. The argument therefore derived from St. Luke's silence respecting the flight into Egypt, or any change of place, cannot be allowed to possess any real weight, when opposed to the mass of direct evidence.