55. By Dr. Jellinek , in a work in six parts, entitled 'Beth ha-Midrash,' Leipz, and Vienna,
1853-1878.
56. Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash, fasc. iii. p. 8.
57. It would, of course, be possible to argue, that the Evangelic account arose from this
Jewish tradition about the appearance of a star two years before the birth of the Messiah.
But it has been already shown, that the hypothesis of a Jewish legendary origin is utterly
untenable. Besides, if St. Matthew ii. had been derived from this tradition, the narrative
would have been quite differently shaped, and more especially the two years' interval
between the rising of the star and the Advent of the Messiah would have been
emphasized, instead of being, as now, rather matter of inference.
Did such a Star, then, really appear in the East seven years before the Christian era?
Astronomically speaking, and without any reference to controversy, there can be no
doubt that the most remarkable conjunction of planets - that of Jupiter and Saturn in the
constellation of Pisces, which occurs only once in 800 years - did take place no less than
three times in the year 747 a.u.c., or two years before the birth of Christ (in May, October
and December). This conjunction is admitted by all astronomers. It was not only
extraordinary, but presented the most brilliant spectacle in the night-sky, such as could
not but attract the attention of all who watched the sidereal heavens, but especially of
those who busied themselves with astrology. In the year following, that is, in 748 a.u.c.,
another planet, Mars, joined this conjunction. The merit of first discovering these facts -
of which it is unnecessary here to present the literary history58 - belongs to the great
Kepler,59 who, accordingly, placed the Nativity of Christ in the year 748 a.u.c. This date,
however, is not only well nigh impossible; but it has also been shown that such a
conjunction would, for various reasons, not answer the requirements of the Evangelical
narrative, so far as the guidance to Bethlehem is concerned. But it does fully account for
the attention of the Magi being aroused, and - even if they had not possessed knowledge
of the Jewish expectancy above described - for their making inquiry of all around, and
certainly, among others, of the Jews. Here we leave the domain of the certain, and enter
upon that of the probable. Kepler, who was led to the discovery by observing a similar
conjunction in 1603-4, also noticed, that when the three planets came into conjunction, a
new, extraordinary, brilliant, and peculiarly colored evanescent star was visible between
Jupiter and Saturn, and he suggested that a similar star had appeared under the same
circumstances in the conjunction preceding the Nativity. Of this, of course, there is not,
and cannot be, absolute certainty. But, if so, this would be 'the star' of the Magi, 'in its
rising.' There is yet another remarkable statement, which, however, must also be assigned
only to the domain of the probable. In the astronomical tables of the Chinese - to whose
general trustworthiness so high an authority as Humboldt bears testimony60 - the
appearance of an evanescent star wa s noted. Pingre and others have designated it as a
comet, and calculated its first appearance in February 750 a.u.c., which is just the time
when the Magi would, in all probability, leave Jerusalem for Bethlehem, since this must
have preceded the death of Herod, which took place in March 750. Moreover, it has been
astronomically ascertained, that such a sidereal apparition would be visible to those who
left Jerusalem, and that it would point - almost seem to go before - in the direction of, and
stand over, Bethlehem.61 Such, impartially stated, are the facts of the case - and here the
subject must, in the present state of our information, be left.62