Chapter 7 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 9
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
THE VISIT AND HOMAGE OF THE MAGI, AND THE
FLIGHT INTO EGYPT
(St. Matthew 2:1-18.)
With the Presentation of the Infant Saviour in the Temple, and
His acknowledgment - not indeed by the leaders of Israel, but,
characteristically, by the representatives of those earnest men and women who
looked for His Advent - the Prologue, if such it may be called, to the third
Gospel closes. From whatever source its information was derived - perhaps, as
has been suggested, its earlier portion from the Virgin-Mother, the later from
Anna; or else both alike from her, who with loving reverence and wonderment
treasured it all in her heart - its marvellous details could not have been told
with greater simplicity, nor yet with more exquisitely delicate grace.1
On the other hand, the Prologue to the first Gospel, while omitting these,
records other incidents of the infancy of the Saviour. The plan of these
narratives, or the sources whence they may originally have been derived, may
account for the omissions in either case. At first sight it may seem strange,
that the cosmopolitan Gospel by St. Luke should have described what took place
in the Temple, and the homage of the Jews, while the Gospel by St. Matthew,
which was primarily intended for Hebrews, records only the homage of the
Gentiles, and the circumstances which led to the flight into Egypt. But of such
seeming contrasts there are not a few in the Gospel-history - discords, which
soon resolve themselves into glorious harmony.
1. It is scarcely necessary to point out, how evidential this is of the truthfulness
of the Gospel-narrative. In this respect also the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, with their gross and often repulsive legendary adornments, form a striking contrast. I have purposely abstained from reproducing any of these narratives,
partly because previous writers have done so, and partly because the only object served by repeating, what must so deeply shock the Christian mind, would be to
point the contrast between the canonical and the Apocryphal Gospels. But this can, I think, be as well done by a single sentence, as by pages of quotations.
The story of the homage to the Infant Saviour by the Magi
is told by St. Matthew, in language of which the brevity constitutes the chief
difficulty. Even their designation is not free from ambiguity. The term Magi
is used in the LXX., by Philo, Josephus, and by profane writers, alike in an
evil and, so to speak, in a good sense2
- in the former case as implying the practice of magical arts;3
in the latter, as referring to the those Eastern (especially Chaldee)
priest-sages, whose researches, in great measure as yet mysterious and unknown
to us, seem to have embraced much deep knowledge, though not untinged with
superstition. It is to these latter, that the Magi spoken of by St. Matthew
must have belonged. Their number - to which, however, no importance attaches -
cannot be ascertained.4
Various suggestions have been made as to the country of 'the East,' whence they
came. At the period in question the sacerdotal caste of the Medes and Persians
was dispersed over various parts of the East,5
and the presence in those lands of a large Jewish diaspora, through
which they might, and probably would, gain knowledge of the great hope of
sufficiently attested by Jewish history. The oldest opinion traces the Magi -
though partially on insufficient grounds7
- to Arabia. And there is this in favor of it, that not only the closest
intercourse existed between Palestine and Arabia, but that from about 120 b.c. to the sixth century of our era,
the kings of Yemen professed the Jewish faith.8
For if, on the one hand, it seems unlikely, that Eastern Magi would
spontaneously connect a celestial phenomenon with the birth of a Jewish king,
evidence will, on the other hand, be presented to connect the meaning attached
to the appearance of 'the star' at that particular time with Jewish expectancy
of the Messiah. But we are anticipating.
2. The evidence on this point is furnished by J. G. Müller in Herzog's Real-Enc., vol. viii. p. 682. The whole subject of the visit of the Magi is treated with the greatest ability and learning (as against Strauss) by Dr. Mill ('On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels,' part ii. pp. 275 &c.).
3. So also in Acts viii. 9; xiii. 6, 8.
4. They are variously stated as twelve (Aug. Chrysost.) and three, the latter on account of the number of the gifts. Other legends on the subject need not be repeated.
5. Mill, u. s., p. 303.
6. There is no historical evidence that at the time of Christ there was among the nations any widespread expectancy of the Advent of a Messiah in Palestine. Where the knowledge of such a hope existed, it must have been entirely derived from Jewish sources. The allusions to it by Tacitus (Hist. v. 13) and Suetonius
(Vesp. 4) are evidently derived from Josephus, and admittedly refer to the
Flavian dynasty, and to a period seventy years or more after the Advent of
Christ. 'The splendid vaticination in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil,' which
Archdeacon Farrar regards as among the 'unconscious prophecies of heathendom,' is confessedly derived from the Cumaean Sibyl, and based on the Sibylline Oracles, book iii. lines 784-794 (ed. Friedlieb, p. 86; see Einl. p. xxxix.). Almost the whole of book iii., inclusive of these verses, is of Jewish
authorship, and dates probably from about 160 b.c. Archdeacon Farrar holds that, besides the above references, 'there is ample proof, both in Jewish and Pagan writings, that a guilty and weary world
was dimly expecting the advent of its Deliverer.' But he offers no evidence of it, either from Jewish or Pagan writings.
7. Comp. Mill, u.s., p. 308, note 66. The grounds adduced by some are such references as to Is. viii. 4; Ps. lxxii. 10, &c.; and the character of the gifts.
8. Comp. the account of this Jewish monarchy in the 'History of the Jewish Nation,' pp. 67-71; also Remond's Vers. e. Gesch. d. Ausbreit. d. Judenth. pp. 81 &c.; and Jost, Gesch. d. Isr. vol. v. pp. 236 &c.
Shortly after the Presentation of the Infant Saviour in the
Temple, certain Magi from the East arrived in Jerusalem with strange tidings.
They had seen at its 'rising'9
a sidereal appearance,10
which they regarded as betokening the birth of the Messiah King of the Jews, in
the sense which at the time attached to that designation. Accordingly, they had
come to Jerusalem to pay homage11
to Him, probably not because they imagined He must be born in the Jewish
because they would naturally expect there to obtain authentic information,
'where' He might be found. In their simplicity of heart, the Magi addressed
themselves in the first place to the official head of the nation. The rumor of
such an inquiry, and by such persons, would rapidly spread throughout the city.
But it produced on King Herod, and in the capital, a far different impression
from the feeling of the Magi. Unscrupulously cruel as Herod had always proved,
even the slightest suspicion of danger to his rule - the bare possibility of
the Advent of One, Who had such claims upon the allegiance of Israel, and Who,
if acknowledged, would evoke the most intense movement on their part - must
have struck terror to his heart. Not that he could believe the tidings, though
a dread of their possibility might creep over a nature such as Herod's; but the
bare thought of a Pretender, with such claims, would fill him with suspicion,
apprehension, and impotent rage. Nor is it difficult to understand, that the
whole city should, although on different grounds, have shared the 'trouble' of
the king. It was certainly not, as some have suggested, from apprehension of
'the woes' which, according to popular notions, were to accompany the Advent of
Messiah. Throughout the history of Christ the absence of such 'woes' was never
made a ground of objection to His Messianic claims; and this, because these
'woes' were not associated with the first Advent of the Messiah, but with His
final manifestation in power. And between these two periods a more or less long
interval was supposed to intervene, during which the Messiah would be 'hidden,'
either in the literal sense, or perhaps as to His power, or else in both
enables us to understand the question of the disciples, as to the sign of His
coming and the end of the world, and the answer of the Master.14
But the people of Jerusalem had far other reason to fear. They knew only too
well the character of Herod, and what the consequences would be to them, or to
any one who might be suspected, however unjustly, of sympathy with any claimant
to the royal throne of David.15
9. This is the correct rendering, and not, as in A.V., 'in the East,' the latter being
expressed by the plural of anatolh,
in v. 1, while in vv. 2 and 9 the word is used in the singular.
10. Schleusner has abundantly proved that the word asthr,
though primarily meaning a star, is also used of constellations,
meteors, and comets - in short, has the widest application: 'omne designare, quod aliquem splendorem habet et emitit' (Lex. in N.T., t. i. pp. 390, 391).
11. Not, as in the A.V., 'to worship,' which at this stage of the history would seem most incongruous, but as an equivalent of the Hebrew hwht#h, as in Gen. xix. 1. So often in the LXX. and by profane writers (comp. Scheleusner, u. s., t. ii. pp. 749, 750, and Vorstius, De Hebraismis N.T. pp. 637-641).
12. This is the view generally, but as I think erroneously, entertained. Any Jew would have told them, that the Messiah was not to be born in Jerusalem. Besides, the question of the Magi implies their ignorance of the 'where' of the Messiah.
13. Christian writers on these subjects have generally conjoined the so-called 'woes of the
Messiah' with His first appearance. It seems not to have occurred to them,
that, if such had been the Jewish expectation, a preliminary objection would have lain against the claims of Jesus from their absence.
14. As reported in St. Matt. xxiv. 3-29.
15. Their feelings on this matter would be represented, mutatis mutandis, by the expressions in the Sanhedrin, recorded in St. John xi. 47-50.
Herod took immediate measures, characterised by his usual
cunning. He called together all the High-Priests - past and present - and all
the learned Rabbis,16
and, without committing himself as to whether the Messiah was already born, or
simply propounded to them the question of His birthplace. This would show him
where Jewish expectancy looked for the appearance of his rival, and thus enable
him to watch alike that place and the people generally, while it might possibly
bring to light the feelings of the leaders of Israel. At the same time he took
care diligently to inquire the precise time, when the sidereal appearance had
first attracted the attention of the Magi.18
This would enable him to judge, how far back he would have to make his own
inquiries, since the birth of the Pretender might be made to synchronise with
the earliest appearance of the sidereal phenomenon. So long as any one lived,
who was born in Bethlehem between the earliest appearance of this 'star'
and the time of the arrival of the Magi, he was not safe. The subsequent
conduct of Herod19
shows, that the Magi must have told him, that their earliest observation of the
sidereal phenomenon had taken place two years before their arrival in
16. Both Meyer and Weiss have shown, that this was not a meeting of the Sanhedrin, if, indeed, that body had anything more than a shadowy existence during the reign of Herod.
17. The question propounded by Herod (v. 4), 'where Christ should be born,' is put neither in the past nor in the future, but in the present tense. In
other words, he laid before them a case - a theological problem, but not a fact, either past or future.
18. St. Matt. ii. 7.
19. v. 16.
The assembled authorities of Israel could only return one
answer to the question submitted by Herod. As shown by the rendering of the
Targum Jonathan, the prediction in Micah v. 2 was at the time universally
understood as pointing to Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the Messiah. That
such was the general expectation, appears from the Talmud,20
where, in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew, Bethlehem is
authoritatively named as Messiah's birthplace. St. Matthew reproduces the
prophetic utterance of Micah, exactly as such quotations were popularly made at
that time. It will be remembered that, Hebrew being a dead language so far as
the people were concerned, the Holy Scriptures were always translated into the
popular dialect, the person so doing being designated Methurgeman (dragoman)
or interpreter. These renderings, which at the time of St. Matthew were not yet
allowed to be written down, formed the precedent for, if not the basis of, our
later Targum. In short, at that time each one Targumed for
himself, and these Targumim (as our existing one on the Prophets shows)
were neither literal versions,21
nor yet paraphrases, but something between them, a sort of interpreting
translation. That, when Targuming, the New Testament writers should in
preference make use of such a well-known and widely-spread version as the
Translation of the LXX. needs no explanation. That they did not confine
themselves to it, but, when it seemed necessary, literally or Targumically
rendered a verse, appears from the actual quotations in the New Testament. Such
Targuming of the Old Testament was entirely in accordance with the then
universal method of setting Holy Scripture before a popular audience. It is
needless to remark, that the New Testament writers would Targum as
Christians. These remarks apply not only to the case under immediate
but generally to the quotations from the Old Testament in the New.23
20. Jer. Ber. ii. 4, p. 5 a.
21. In point of fact, the Talmud expressly lays it down, that 'whosoever targums a verse in its closely literal form [without due regard to its meaning], is a liar.' (Kidd. 49 a; comp. on the subject Deutsch's 'Literary
Remains,' p. 327).
22. St. Matt. ii. 6.
23. The general principle, that St. Matthew rendered Mic. v. 2 targumically,
would, it seems, cover all the differences between his quotation and the Hebrew text. But it may be worth while, in this instance at least, to examine the differences in detail. Two of them are trivial, viz., 'Bethlehem, land of Juda,' instead of 'Ephratah;' 'princes' instead of 'thousands,' though St.
Matthew may, possibly, have pointed yp'[email protected])[email protected]: ('princes'), instead of yp'li)[email protected]: as in our Hebrew text. Perhaps he rendered the word more
correctly than we do, since Ple)e means not only a 'thousand' but also a
part of a tribe (Is. lx. 22), a clan, or Beth Abh (Judg. vi. 15); comp.
also Numb. i. 16; x. 4, 36; Deut. xxxiii. 17; Josh. xxii. 21, 30; i Sam. x. 19;
xxiii. 23; in which case the personification of these 'thousands' (=our
'hundreds') by their chieftains or 'princes' would be a very apt Targumic
rendering. Two other of the divergences are more important, viz., (1) 'Art not
the least,' instead of 'though thou be little.' But the Hebrew words have also
been otherwise rendered: in the Syriac interrogatively ('art thou
little?'), which suggests the rendering of St. Matthew; and in the Arabic just
as by St. Matthew (vide Pocock, Porta Mosis, Notæ, c. ii.; but Pocock
does not give the Targum accurately). Credner ingeniously suggested,
that the rendering of St. Matthew may have been caused by a Targumic rendering
of the Hebrew ry(ici by ry(zb; but he does not seem to have noticed, that this is the actual rendering in the Targum Jon. on the passage. As for the second and more serious divergence in the latter part of the verse, it may be
best here simply to give for comparison the rendering of the passage in the Targum Jonathan: 'Out of thee shall come forth before Me Messiah to exercise rule over Israel.'
The further conduct of Herod was in keeping with his plans. He
sent for the Magi - for various reasons, secretly. After ascertaining
the precise time, when they had first observed the 'star,' he directed them to
Bethlehem, with the request to inform him when they had found the Child; on
pretence, that he was equally desirous with them to pay Him homage. As they
for the goal of their pilgrimage, to their surprise and joy, the 'star,' which
had attracted their attention at its 'rising,'25
and which, as seems implied in the narrative, they had not seen of late, once
more appeared on the horizon, and seemed to move before them, till 'it stood
over where the young child was' - that is, of course, over Bethlehem, not over
any special house in it. Whether at a turn of the road, close to Bethlehem,
they lost sight of it, or they no longer heeded its position, since it had
seemed to go before them to the goal that had been pointed out - for, surely,
they needed not the star to guide them to Bethlehem - or whether the
celestial phenomenon now disappeared, is neither stated in the
Gospel-narrative, nor is indeed of any importance. Sufficient for them, and for
us: they had been authoritatively directed to Bethlehem; as they had set out for
it, the sidereal phenomenon had once more appeared; and it had seemed to go
before them, till it actually stood over Bethlehem. And, since in ancient times
such extraordinary 'guidance' by a 'star' was matter of belief and expectancy,26
the Magi would, from their standpoint, regard it as the fullest confirmation
that they had been rightly directed to Bethlehem, and 'they rejoiced with
exceeding great joy.' It could not be difficult to learn in Bethlehem, where
the Infant, around Whose Birth marvels had gathered, might be found. It appears
that the temporary shelter of the 'stable' had been exchanged by the Holy
Family for the more permanent abode of a 'house;'27
and there the Magi found the Infant-Saviour with His Mother. With exquisite
tact and reverence the narrative attempts not the faintest description of the
scene. It is as if the sacred writer had fully entered into the spirit of St.
Paul, 'Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth
know we Him no more.'28
And thus it should ever be. It is the great fact of the manifestation of Christ
- not its outward surroundings, however precious or touching they might be in
connection with any ordinary earthly being - to which our gaze must be
directed. The externals may, indeed, attract our sensuous nature; but they
detract from the unmatched glory of the great supersensuous Reality.29
Around the Person of the God-Man, in the hour when the homage of the heathen
world was first offered Him, we need not, and want not, the drapery of outward
circumstances. That scene is best realized, not by description, but by silently
joining in the silent homage and the silent offerings of 'the wise men from the
24. Not necessarily by night, as most writers suppose.
25. So correctly, and not 'in the East,' as in A.V.
26. Proof of this is abundantly furnished by Wetstein, Nov. Test. t. i. pp. 247 and 248.
27. v. 11.
28. 2 Cor. v 16
29. In this seems to lie the strongest condemnation of Romish and Romanising tendencies, that they ever seek to present - or, perhaps, rather obtrude - the
external circumstances. It is not thus that the Gospel most fully presents to us the spiritual, nor yet thus that the deepest and holiest impressions are made. True religion is ever objectivistic, sensuous subjectivistic.
Before proceeding further, we must ask ourselves two questions:
What relationship does this narrative bear to Jewish expectancy? and, Is there
any astronomical confirmation of this account? Besides their intrinsic
interest, the answer to the first question will determine, whether any
legendary basis could be assigned to the narrative; while on the second will
depend, whether the account can be truthfully charged with an accommodation on
the part of God to the superstitions and errors of astrology. For, if the whole
was extranatural, and the sidereal appearance specially produced in order to
meet the astrological views of the Magi, it would not be a sufficient answer to
the difficulty, 'that great catastrophes and unusual phenomena in nature have
synchronised in a remarkable manner with great events in human history.'30
On the other hand, if the sidereal appearance was not of supernatural origin,
and would equally have taken place whether or not there had been Magi to direct
to Bethlehem, the difficulty is not only entirely removed, but the narrative
affords another instance, alike of the condescension of God to the lower
standpoint of the Magi, and of His wisdom and goodness in the combination of
30. Archdeacon Farrar.
As regards the question of Jewish expectancy, sufficient has
been said in the preceding pages, to show that Rabbinism looked for a very
different kind and manner of the world's homage to the Messiah than that of a
few Magi, guided by a star to His Infant-Home. Indeed, so far from serving as
historical basis for the origin of such a 'legend' a more gross caricature of
Jewish Messianic anticipation could scarcely be imagined. Similarly futile
would it be to seek a background for this narrative in Balaam's prediction,31
since it is incredible that any one could have understood it as referring to a
brief sidereal apparition to a few Magi, in order to bring them to look for the
Messiah.32 Nor can
it be represented as intended to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah,33
that 'they shall bring gold and incense, and they shall show forth the praises
of the Lord.' For, supposing this figurative language to have been grossly
what would become of the other part of that prophecy,36
which must, of course, have been treated in the same manner; not to speak of
the fact, that the whole evidently refers not to the Messiah (least of all in
His Infancy), but to Jerusalem in her latter-day glory. Thus, we fail to
perceive any historical basis for a legendary origin of St. Matthew's
narrative, either in the Old Testament or, still less, in Jewish tradition. And
we are warranted in asking: If the account be not true, what rational
explanation can be given of its origin, since its invention would never have
occurred to any contemporary Jew?
31. Numb. xxiv. 17.
32. Strauss (Leben Jesu, i. pp. 224-249) finds a legendary basis for the Evangelic account
in Numb. xxiv. 17, and also appeals to the legendary stories of profane writers about stars appearing at the birth of great men.
33. lx. 6 last clauses.
34. Keim (Jesu von Nazara, i. 2, p. 377) drops the appeal to legends of profane writers,
ascribes only a secondary influence to Numb. xxiv. 17, and lays the main stress of 'the legend' on Is. lx. - with what success the reader may judge.
35. Can it be imagined that any person would invent such a 'legend' on the strength of
Is. lx. 6? On the other hand, if the event really took place, it is easy to understand how Christian symbolism would - though uncritically - have seen an adumbration of it in that prophecy.
36. The 'multitude of camels and dromedaries,' the 'flocks of Kedar and the rams of Nebaioth' (v. 7), and 'the isles,' and 'the ships of Tarshish' (v. 9).
But this is not all. There seems, indeed, no logical connection
between this astrological interpretation of the Magi, and any supposed practice
of astrology among the Jews. Yet, strange to say, writers have largely insisted
on this.37 The
charge is, to say the least, grossly exaggerated. That Jewish - as other
Eastern - impostors pretended to astrological knowledge, and that such
investigations may have been secretly carried on by certain Jewish students, is
readily admitted. But the language of disapproval in which these pursuits are
referred to - such as that knowledge of the Law is not found with astrologers38
- and the emphatic statement, that he who learned even one thing from a Mage
deserved death, show what views were authoritatively held.39
Of course, the Jews (or many of them), like most ancients, believed in the
influence of the planets upon the destiny of man.41
But it was a principle strongly expressed, and frequently illustrated in the
Talmud, that such planetary influence did not extend to Israel.42
It must be admitted, that this was not always consistently carried out; and
there were Rabbis who computed a man's future from the constellation (the Mazzal),
either of the day, or the hour, under which he was born.43
It was supposed, that some persons had a star of their own,44
and the (representative) stars of all proselytes were said to have been present
at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, they also, like Israel, had lost the defilement of
the serpent (sin).45
One Rabbi even had it, that success, wisdom, the duration of life, and a
posterity, depended upon the constellation.46
Such views were carried out till they merged in a kind of fatalism,47
or else in the idea of a 'natal affinity,' by which persons born under the same
constellation were thought to stand in sympathetic rapport.48
The further statement, that conjunctions of the planets49
affected the products of the earth50
is scarcely astrological; nor perhaps this, that an eclipse of the sun
betokened evil to the nations, an eclipse of the moon to Israel, because the
former calculated time by the sun, the latter by the moon.
37. The subject of Jewish astrology is well treated by Dr. Hamburger, both in
the first and second volumes of his Real-Encykl. The ablest summary, though brief, is that in Dr. Gideon Brecher's book, 'Das Transcendentale im
Talmud.' Gfrörer is, as usually, one-sided, and not always trustworthy in his translations. A curious brochure by Rabbi Thein (Der Talmud, od. das Prinzip d. planet. Elinfl.) is one of the boldest attempts at special pleading, to the ignoration of palpable facts on the other side. Hausrath's
dicta on this subject are, as on many others, assertions unsupported by
38. Deb. R. 8.
39. Comp. Shabb. 75 a.
40. I cannot, however, see that Buxtorf charges so many Rabbis with giving themselves
to astrology as Dr. Geikie imputes to him - nor how Humboldt can be
quoted as corroborating the Chinese record of the appearance of a new star in 750 (see the passage in the Cosmos, Engl. transl. vol. i. pp. 92, 93).
41. See for ex. Jos. War vi. 5. 3.
42. Shabb. 156 a.
43. Shabb, u. s.
44. Moed K. 16 a.
45. Shabb. 145 b; 146 a comp. Yeb. 103 b.
46. Moed K. 28 a.
47. Comp. Baba K. 2 b; Shabb. 121 b.
48. Ned. 39 b.
astronomy distinguishes the seven planets (called 'wandering stars'); the
twelve signs of the Zodiac, Mazzaloth (Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer,
Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces) -
arranged by astrologers into four trigons: that of fire (1, 5, 9); of earth (2,
6, 10); of air (3, 7, 11); and of water (4, 8, 12); and the stars. The
Kabbalistic book Raziel (dating from the eleventh century) arranges them into three quadrons. The comets, which are called arrows or star-rods, proved a
great difficulty to students. The planets (in their order) were: Shabbathai
(the Sabbatic, Saturn); Tsedeq (righteousness, Jupiter); Maadim
(the red, blood-coloured, Mars); Chammah (the Sun); Nogah
(splendour, Venus); Cokhabh (the star, Mercury); Lebhanah (the
Moon). Kabbalistic works depict our system as a circle, the lower arc
consisting of Oceanos, and the upper filled by the sphere of the earth;
next comes that of the surrounding atmosphere; then successively the seven
semicircles of the planets, each fitting on the other - to use the Kabbalistic
illustration - like the successive layers in an onion (see Sepher Raziel, ed.
Lemb. 1873, pp. 9 b, 10 a). Day and night were divided each into
twelve hours (from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.).
Each hour was under the influence of successive planets: thus, Sunday, 7
a.m., the Sun; 8 a.m., Venus; 9 a.m., Mercury; 10 a.m.,
Moon; 11 a.m., Saturn; 12 a.m., Jupiter, and so on. Similarly, we
have for Monday, 7 a.m.,
the Moon, &c.; for Tuesday, 7 a.m.,
Mars; for Wednesday, 7 a.m.,
Mercury; for Thursday, 7 a.m.,
Jupiter; for Friday, 7 a.m.,
Venus; and for Saturday, 7 a.m.,
Saturn. Most important were the Tequphoth, in which the Sun entered
respectively Aries (Tek. Nisan, spring-equinox, 'harvest'), Cancer (Tek.
Tammuz, summer solstice, 'warmth'), Libra (Tek. Tishri,
autumn-equinox, seed-time), Capricornus (Tek. Tebheth, winter-solstice,
'cold'). Comp. Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Gen. viii. 22. From one Tequphah to the
other were 91 days 7½ hours. By a beautiful figure the sundust is called
'filings of the day' (as the word xusma
- that which falls off from the sunwheel as it turns (Yoma 20 b).
50. Erub. 56 a: Ber. R. 10.
But there is one illustrative Jewish statement which, though not
astrological, is of the greatest importance, although it seems to have been
hitherto overlooked. Since the appearance of Münter's well known
tractate on the Star of the Magi,51
writers have endeavoured to show, that Jewish expectancy of a Messiah was
connected with a peculiar sidereal conjunction, such as that which occurred two
years before the birth of our Lord,52
and this on the ground of a quotation from the well-known Jewish commentator
Abarbanel (or rather Abrabanel).53
In his Commentary on Daniel that Rabbi laid it down, that the conjunction of
Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces betokened not only the most
important events, but referred especially to Israel (for which he gives five
mystic reasons). He further argues that, as that conjunction had taken place
three years before the birth of Moses, which heralded the first deliverance of
Israel, so it would also precede the birth of the Messiah, and the final
deliverance of Israel. But the argument fails, not only because Abarbanel's
calculations are inconclusive and even erroneous,54
but because it is manifestly unfair to infer the state of Jewish belief at the
time of Christ from a haphazard astrological conceit of a Rabbi of the
fifteenth century. There is, however, testimony which seems to us not only
reliable, but embodies most ancient Jewish tradition. It is contained in one of
the smaller Midrashim, of which a collection has lately been published.55
On account of its importance, one quotation at least from it should be made in
full. The so-called Messiah-Haggadah (Aggadoth Mashiach) opens as
follows: 'A star shall come out of Jacob. There is a Boraita in the name
of the Rabbis: The heptad in which the Son of David cometh - in the first
year, there will not be sufficient nourishment; in the second year the
arrows of famine are launched; in the third, a great famine; in the fourth,
neither famine nor plenty; in the fifth, great abundance, and the
Star shall shine forth from the East, and this is the Star of the Messiah.
And it will shine from the East for fifteen days, and if it be prolonged, it
will be for the good of Israel; in the sixth, sayings (voices), and
announcements (hearings); in the seventh, wars, and at the close of the
seventh the Messiah is to be expected.' A similar statement occurs at the close
of a collection of three Midrashim - respectively entitled, 'The Book of
Elijah,' 'Chapters about the Messiah,' and 'The Mysteries of R. Simon, the son
of Jochai'56 - where
we read that a Star in the East was to appear two years before the birth of the
Messiah. The statement is almost equally remarkable, whether it represents a
tradition previous to the birth of Jesus, or originated after that event. But two
years before the birth of Christ, which, as we have calculated, took place
in December 749 a.u.c., or 5
before the Christian era, brings us to the year 747 a.u.c., or 7 before Christ, in which such a Star should
appear in the East.57
Stern der Weisen,' Copenhagen, 1827. The tractate, though so frequently quoted,
seems scarcely to have been sufficiently studied, most writers having
apparently rather read the references to it in Ideler's Handb. d. Math.
u techn. Chronol. Münter's work contains much that is interesting and important.
52. In 747 a.u.c., or 7 b.c.
53. Born 1439 died 1508.
54. To form an adequate conception of the untrustworthiness of such a testimony, it is
necessary to study the history of the astronomical and astrological pursuits of
the Jews during that period, of which a masterly summary is given in Steinschneider's
History of Jewish Literature (Ersch u. Gruber, Encykl. vol.
xxvii.). Comp. also Sachs, Relig. Poes. d. Juden in Spanien, pp. 230 &c.
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 was 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
58. The chief writers on the subject have been: Münter (u.s.), Ideler
(u.s.). and Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse d. 4 Evang. (1843), and again in Herzog's
Real-Enc. vol. xxi p. 544, and finally in his Beitr. z. Würd. d Ev. 1869). In our own country, writers have, since the appearance of Professor Pritchard's
art. ('Star of the Wise Men') in Dr. Smith's Bible Dict. vol. iii.,
generally given up the astronomical argument, without, however, clearly
indicating whether they regard the star as a miraculous guidance. I do not, of course, presume to enter on an astronomical discussion with Professor Pritchard; but as his reasoning proceeds on the idea that the planetary conjunction of 747 a.u.c., is
regarded as 'the Star of the Magi,' his arguments do not apply either to the view presented in the text nor even to that of Wieseler. Besides, I must guard myself against accepting his interpretation of the narrative in St. Matthew.
59. De Stella Nova &c., Pragæ, 1606.
60. Cosmos. vol. i. p. 92.
61. By the astronomer, Dr. Goldschmidt. (See Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 72.).
62. A somewhat different view is presented in the laborious and learned edition of the New Testament by Mr. Brown McClellan (vol. i. pp, 400-402).
Only two things are recorded of this visit of the Magi to
Bethlehem: their humblest Eastern homage, and their offerings.63
Viewed as gifts, the incense and the myrrh would, indeed, have been strangely
inappropriate. But their offerings were evidently intended as specimens of the
products of their country, and their presentation was, even as in our own days,
expressive of the homage of their country to the new-found King. In this sense,
then, the Magi may truly be regarded as the representatives of the Gentile
world; their homage as the first and typical acknowledgment of Christ by those
who hitherto had been 'far off;' and their offerings as symbolic of the world's
tribute. This deeper significance the ancient Church has rightly apprehended,
though, perhaps, mistaking its grounds. Its symbolism, twining, like the
convolvulus, around the Divine Plant, has traced in the gold the emblem of His
Royalty; in the myrrh, of His Humanity, and that in the fullest evidence of it,
in His burying; and in the incense, that of His Divinity.64
63. Our A.V. curiously translates in v. 11, 'treasures,' instead of 'treasury-cases.'
The expression is exactly the same as in Deut. xxviii. 12, for which the LXX. use the same words as the Evangelist. The expression is also used in this sense in the Apocr. and by profane writers. Comp. Wetstein and Meyer ad locum. Jewish tradition also expresses the expectancy that the nations of the world would offer gifts unto the Messiah. (Comp. Pes. 118 b; Ber. R. 78.).
64. So not only in ancient hymns (by Sedulius, Juvencus, and Claudian),
but by the Fathers and later writers. (Comp. Sepp, Leben Jesu, ii. 1, pp. 102, 103.)
As always in the history of Christ, so here also, glory and
suffering appear in juxtaposition. It could not be, that these Magi should
become the innocent instruments of Herod's murderous designs; nor yet that the
Infant-Saviour should fall a victim to the tyrant. Warned of God in a dream,
the 'wise men' returned 'into their own country another way;' and, warned by
the angel of the Lord in a dream, the Holy Family sought temporary shelter in
Egypt. Baffled in the hope of attaining his object through the Magi, the
reckless tyrant sought to secure it by an indiscriminate slaughter of all the
children in Bethlehem and its immediate neighborhood, from two years and under.
True, considering the population of Bethlehem, their number could only have
been small, probably twenty at most.65
But the deed was none the less atrocious; and these infants may justly be
regarded as the 'protomartyrs,' the first witnesses, of Christ, 'the blossom of martyrdom' ('flores martyrum,' as Prudentius calls them). The slaughter
was entirely in accordance with the character and former measures of Herod.66
Nor do we wonder, that it remained unrecorded by Josephus, since on other
occasions also he has omitted events which to us seem important.67
The murder of a few infants in an insignificant village might appear scarcely
worth notice in a reign stained by so much bloodshed. Besides, he had, perhaps,
a special motive for this silence. Josephus always carefully suppresses, so far
as possible, all that refers to the Christ68
- probably not only in accordance with his own religious views, but because
mention of a Christ might have been dangerous, certainly would have been
inconvenient, in a work written by an intense self-seeker, mainly for readers
65. So Archdeacon Farrar rightly computes it.
66. An illustrative instance of the ruthless destruction of whole families on suspicion that his crown was in danger, occurs in Ant. xv. 8. 4. But the suggestion that Bagoas had suffered at the hands of Herod for Messianic predictions is entirely an invention of Keim. (Schenkel, Bibel
Lex., vol. iii. p. 37. Comp. Ant. xvii. 2. 4.)
67. There are, in Josephus' history of Herod, besides omissions, inconsistencies of narrative, such as about the execution of Mariamme (Ant. xv. 3, 5-9 &c.;
comp. War i. 22. 3, 4), and of chronology (as War i. 18. 2, comp. v. 9. 4; Ant. xiv. 16. 2, comp. xv. 1. 2, and others.)
68. Comp. on article on Josephus in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biogr.
Of two passages in his own Old Testament Scriptures the
Evangelist sees a fulfilment in these events. The flight into Egypt is to him
the fulfilment of this expression by Hosea, 'Out of Egypt have I called My
Son.'69 In the
murder of 'the Innocents,' he sees the fulfilment of Rachel's lament70 (who died and was buried in Ramah)71
over her children, the men of Benjamin, when the exiles to Babylon met in
Ramah,72 and there
was bitter wailing at the prospect of parting for hopeless captivity, and yet
bitterer lament, as they who might have encumbered the onward march were
pitilessly slaughtered. Those who have attentively followed the course of
Jewish thinking, and marked how the ancient Synagogue, and that rightly, read
the Old Testament in its unity, as ever pointing to the Messiah as the
fulfilment of Israel's history, will not wonder at, but fully accord with, St.
Matthew's retrospective view. The words of Hosea were in the highest sense
'fulfilled' in the flight to, and return of, the Saviour from Egypt.73
To an inspired writer, nay, to a true Jewish reader of the Old Testament, the
question in regard to any prophecy could not be: What did the prophet -
but, What did the prophecy - mean? And this could only be unfolded in
the course of Israel's history. Similarly, those who ever saw in the past the
prototype of the future, and recognized in events, not only the principle, but
the very features, of that which was to come, could not fail to perceive, in
the bitter wail of the mothers of Bethlehem over their slaughtered children,
the full realisation of the prophetic description of the scene enacted in
Jeremiah's days. Had not the prophet himself heard, in the lament of the captives
to Babylon, the echoes of Rachel's voice in the past? In neither one nor the
other case had the utterances of the prophets (Hosea and Jeremiah) been predictions:
they were prophetic. In neither one nor the other case was the
'fulfilment' literal: it was Scriptural, and that in the truest Old Testament
69. Hos. xi. 1.
70. Jer. xxxi. 15.
71. See the evidence for it summarized in 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ,' p. 60.
72. Jer. xi. 1.
73. In point of fact the ancient Synagogue did actually apply to the Messiah Ex. iv. 22, on which the words of Hosea are based. See the Midrash on Ps. ii. 7. The quotation is given in full in our remarks on Ps. ii. 7 in
Chapter 7 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 9