182 



THE REV. J. E. H. THOMSON, M.A., D.D.. ON 



between Rcme and Partliia, and taking advantage of it, many Jews 

 from the east of the Tigris were in Jerusalem. Though most of 

 these would be only temporary sojourners, some seem, from the 

 Greek word used, to have settled in Jerusalem. Others regarded 

 themselves as *' dwellers in Mesopotamia.'" To this multitude 

 Peter preached, and many of those three thousand converts must 

 liave belonged to those four nationalities first named, as hearing 

 in their own tongue the wonderful works of God. These, on 

 their return to their home bej ond the boundaries of the Empire, 

 would need to be able to give a reason for the faith that was in 

 them. The Israelites of the banks of the Tigris were as much 

 influenced by Messianic hopes as were those of Palestine. They 

 do not seem to have kept to themselves the expectation of some 

 great personalit}- springing from their midst ; and thjs influenced 

 their neighbours, as may be seen by the mission of the Magi. 

 Their hopes had been of an imperial Messiah, a Lord of the 

 Kings of the Earth. Instead they — these Jerusalem pilgrims — 

 return home proclaiming their belief that one crucified as a male- 

 factor was the Messiah promised to the Fathers. These temporary 

 sojourners in Jerusalem could have seen little or nothing of 

 Jesus, so as to be fired with personal enthusiasm ; they could not 

 take Peter with them to Mesopotamia. A written record of all 

 that Jesus had done and taught must be their dependence. This 

 record would need to be composed in Aramaic or Hebrew — the 

 two languages which, as Jews, they knew. The conquests of 

 Alexander had spread, it is true, some knowledge of Greek even 

 to Bactria. as proved by the coins, but it was not a medium to 

 influence the public of Parthian Judaism. 



Is the Gospel of Matthew a document that would fit the purpose 

 for which we presume it to have been written, i.e., that Jesus the 

 Crucified fulfilled all that the prophets had foretold of the Messiah, 

 and that He was — what the prophets had but hinted — God as well 

 as Man? 



It opens by showing Christ's legal Davidic descent in the 

 throne line. Xext it shows that His place of birth was that fore- 

 told, a fact emphasized by the visit of the Magi ; the mission of 

 whom might still be remembered, even after the lapse of more 

 than thirty years, and so confirm the Gospel. Although the 

 interest and excitement it would cause at the time among the 

 Jews of Parthia would have died down, yet the memory would be 

 easily re\ived. Matthew alone of the Evangehsts records the visit 

 of the Magians. 



An objection is anticipated: " If tliis Messiah in Whom you 

 believe was born in Bethlehem, how is it that He is always 

 called ' Jesus of Xazareth '? " Matthew answers this by giving 

 an account of the flight into Egypt, the consequence of the 

 Magian mission, and the return, not to Judea, but to Galilee and 



