AND HISTORICAL RESEAKCH UPON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 159 



stated, on the authority of Sir Win. M. Eamsay, that "an old 

 order from the Prefect in Egypt, dated 104 A.D. has been recently 

 found, commanding all persons living at a distance to return 

 to their nomes* for the then approaching census." 



(3) Archelaus. — The plan of Herod to slay the infant Christ, 

 and his cruelty in commanding the slaughter of the infants at 

 Bethlehem, are in full accordance with his character as seen in 

 the pages of Josephus. The account which Matthew gives of 

 Joseph's fearing to return to Bethlehem because he vv^as informed 

 that Archelaus reigned in Judea after Herod's death, has a 

 clear explanation in the fact that Archelaus had shown that he 

 had inherited Herod's cruelty as well as the throne vacated by 

 his death. His slaughter of more than three thousand Jews in 

 Jerusalemf shows that Joseph's fears were very natural. 



The fact that Joseph went with Mary and the babe to Galilee 

 was due to the fact that Archelaus did not inherit the dominion 

 of his father there, Galilee and Perea having been assigned to 

 Herod Antipas, another son of Herod. 



(4) John the Baptist. — There is a remarkable agreement in 

 the account given of the preaching of John the Baptist and his 

 execution by Herod, in Josephus {Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, 

 v, 2), and that given in the Gospels. Josephus speaks of him as 

 " John called the Baptist," and says, " For Herod slew him, who 

 was a good man and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, 

 both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards 

 God, and so to come to baptism, etc." Josephus also tells of 

 Herod's agreement to divorce his wife and marry Herodias. 



(5) EuLERS. — Luke introduces his account of the preaching 

 of John the Baptist in the manner of a very accurate historian, 

 dating it in a year which he marks with exactness by introducing 

 the names of seven persons then in authority in various capaci- 

 ties, the Emperor Tiberius being the first mentioned with the 

 year of his reign designated. Is it found that any mistake has 

 been made ? 



These seven persons are spoken of as contemporaries, and 

 occupying certain offices at a designated time, and among them, 

 Annas and Caiaphas are spoken of as the " high priests." There 

 was only one high priest at a time. Is it not a mistake to speak of 

 two at the same time ? History shows us that there is no mistake 

 here. When we find that Annas had been appointed high 



Provinces, or minor divisions, 

 t Antiquities ofJev:s, XVII, ix, 1-3; Bell. Jud. II, i 3. 



