The True Date of Christ’s Birth

[The computation of time from the Christian era, universally adopted since the eighth century among Christian nations, is based upon the calculation of the year of Christ’s birth, made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus a Roman monk of Scythian extraction. That this calculation is incorrect, is now generally admitted. The church fathers had only an uncertain tradition and differed among themselves. In modern times, Pearson and Hug, have placed the birth of Christ one year before our era; Scaliger, agreeing with Eusebius, two years; Calvisius Vogel, Paulus, and Süskind, agreeing with Jerome, three; Bengel and Anger, with Wieseler and the common view, four; Usher and Petavius, five; Sanclemente and Ideler, seven.

The present essay, in addition to comprising the results of the latest investigations on this question, is further valuable as a thorough examination of the credibility of two prominent events recorded in the gospels in connection with the birth of Jesus, both of which have been disputed, viz. the star in the east, and the census under Augustus near the time of Christ’s birth. The former, Prof. Norton (Evidences of the genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Notes, p. lix.) does not hesitate to call “a fiction,” and even grounds his rejection of the first two chapters in Matthew, in part, on their containing what he calls such “a strange mixture of astrology and miracle” as “we find represented in the story of the Magi.” Even supposing the star to have been an extraordinary meteor, it is difficult to perceive the force of this objection, unless indeed we first assume that the birth of Christ was a far less important event than the world has been accustomed to regard it. But if the ground maintained by Wieseler, in this essay in respect to the star in the east, is correct, not only are the objections of Prof. N. stripped of the semblance of plausibility, but the narrative itself, confirmed by undeniable astronomical facts, becomes a remarkable witness in favor of the genuineness of the two chapters, which it is cited by Prof. N. to impeach.

It is only necessary to add that the author of the following essay is a native of Altencelle in the kingdom of Hanover, where he was born, Feb. 28, 1813. In 1836, he was appointed Repetent in Theology; in 1839, Privatdocent; and in 1842, Professor extraordinarius, in the University of Göttingen. The two other works by which he is known to the public are an examination of the genuineness of Mark 16:9–20 and John 21,¹ and a treatise on the Apocalyptical literature of the Old and New Testaments.² —Tr.]

For the sake of more certain progress, we propose to treat, in the first place, of the year in which Jesus was born, and then, to inquire whether anything can be definitely decided in respect to the month and day.

Our first inquiry, then, is: “In what year was Jesus born? The first year of our customary reckoning of time from the birth of Christ, or the Dionysian era, agrees with the year 754 U. C, according to the reckoning of Varro,³ or 4714, Per. Jul Dionysius himself, as Ideler, after Sanclemente, has shown, in his Manual of Chronology, II 383, (to whose instructive discussion of our question I beg leave to refer the reader,) placed the birth of Jesus near the close of the year 754 U. C. Of more recent writers, even Hase,⁴ despairing of the credibility of the gospel narrative, agrees with the Dionysian reckoning. With this exception, the conviction of the erroneousness of this computation, is at present nearly universal. Let us review the grounds of its rejection, and inquire whether a better one may not be substituted.

In our Gospels, we have four data, on which our investigation must rest, viz.; first, the reign of king Herod, (Matt. 2:1, comp. Luke 1:5, ) the father of Archelaus, (Matt. 2:22); secondly, the appearance of the star of the wise men, and their arrival in Jerusalem, (Matt. 2:2, 7, 16); thirdly, the census in Judea, under Augustus, (Luke 2:1); and fourthly, the thirty years of age, at which Jesus entered upon the Messianic office, (Luke 3:23.) Only the first, third and fourth of these data were designed to possess a chronological character, and thus in this respect also Luke appears more distinctly chronological. According to the degree, in which these four data lead to one and the same result, must its value be estimated. Should it be supported by a whole chronological system with which the gospel narrative harmonizes, its truth would hardly be doubted.

First datum. Christ was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Matt. 2:1–22. Luke 1:5. But how long did Herod reign and when did he die? The historian Josephus, to whom, as by birth a Jew, special authority on this point belongs, informs us (Antiq. 17, 8. 1, de bell. Jud. 1, 3. 8, ) that Herod died in the thirty-seventh year after the time, when by Roman influence (through Antony and Octavius, by virtue of a decree of the Senate) he was appointed king, and in the thirty-fourth year after the death of Antigonus, or the commencement of his actual reign. This appointment, which is mentioned in the Antiq. 14, 14. 5, falls, two chronological data, the 184th Olympiad and the consulate of Cn. Doraitius Calvinus II. and C. Asinius Pollio, there given, in the year 714 U. C. With this agrees the third datum, that Herod, by the joint action of Antony and Octavius, though at the instance, especially, of the former, was elevated to the throne; for the reconciliation of these two men took place immediately upon the death of the imperious Fulvia, i.e. according to Dio 48. 28, in the beginning of the year 714 U. C. In accordance with this, the death of Antigonus, and the storming of Jerusalem by Herod and the Romans, falls, according to Ant. 14, 16. 4, in the year 717⁵ U. C, in the third⁶ month (Sivan), i.e. June or July, as Josephus expressly declares. Upon these data, most chronologists, at the present day, correctly place the death of Herod in the beginning of the year 750 U. C, and only a few, as Paulus, continue to assign the year 751. In fixing upon the latter period, it has not unfrequently been overlooked, that Josephus, in accordance with the chronological principle laid down in the Talmud,⁷ reckons the years of the Jewish princes from Nisan to Nisan, and in such a manner, that a single day before and after that point is reckoned as a full year. Let us cite a few instances. One instance we have already seen in the three years and three months of Antigonus, in the note in Ant 14, 16. 4. A second still more striking occurs in the same passage; where Jerusalem is said to have been taken by Herod on the same day on which, twenty-seven years before, it was taken by Pompey. Now the first of these events took place in the year 691 U. C, and the last in the year 717 U. C. Consequently between these two data, according to the ordinary mode of reckoning, there would be only an interval of twenty-six years, and Josephus would have given exactly one year too much. But if we reckon according to the principle laid down by the Talmudists, we obtain exactly this one year; for then, the time of the taking of Jerusalem from Sivan 691 to Nisan 692, would be equal to one year, and the time from Nisan to Sivan 717, would be again equal to one year, and these two added together, would make two years of a period which, in the ordinary manner of reckoning, would only be one year. Again, Josephus, Ant. 20, 10, reckons from the beginning of the reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple under Titus, i.e. from Sivan 717 to the 10th of Ab, 823, one hundred and seven years. According to the usual mode of reckoning, it is only one hundred and six years and one or two months; and if with Anger we place the beginning of Herod’s reign on the 10th of Tishri, it is not even one hundred and six full years. But not to weary the reader with further examples, those already adduced will be sufficient to establish the general principle in respect to the true mode of computing the length of the reign of Herod and his immediate successors, and also to clear up, I trustthe difficulties in this part of Josephus’ Chronology.

Let us now turn back to the chronological data, derived from Ant. 17, 8.1, in respect to the death of Herod. Thirty-four years after the storming of Jerusalem in Sivan, 717 U. C, brings us, since the thirty-third year ends before the first of Nisan, 750, only to the beginning of Nisan in this year. We obtain the same result from the other computation, thirty-seven years after his appointment, in 714 U. C, to the throne, which could not have been made earlier at farthest than the first of Nisan, 714, on account of the parallel calculation of time mentioned above, the terminus a quo of which we can fix at the month Sivan.

A confirmation of this is afforded us by computing the duration of the reigns of Herod, Antipas and Archelaus, the sons and immediate successors of Herod the Great. The former, as Noris⁸ has shown, was exiled by Caligula to Lyons, (comp. Jos. Ant. 18, 7. 2, ) towards the autumn of 792 U. C, in the forty-third year of his reign.⁹ The forty-third year of his reign commenced on the first of Nisan, 792 U. C.; subtracting from this the remaining forty-two years, we obtain the year 750, and at most not farther than to the first of Nisan. Archelaus, according to Dio 55, 27, was banished by Augustus to Vienne, in the consulship of M. Emilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius, or the year 759 U. C, and as we learn from Josephus, Ant 17, 13. 2, comp. Vita l,in the tenth, or as he elsewhere says in relating the dream of the nine full ears, (de bell. Jud. 2, 7, 3, ) in the ninth year of his reign, i.e. after he had reigned nine years and somewhat over. The nine years extend from the first of Nisan, 750, to the first of Nisan, 759 U. C, and we obtain ten years, if he was banished after the first of Nisan, 759.¹⁰ All these data lead to the conclusion, that Herod the Great must have died not earlier than the first of Nisan, 750, and not later than the first of Nisan, 751.

Within these two limits, however, the time of Herod’s death may be still more definitely settled. Immediately after the death of Herod, occurred the Passover on the 15th of Nisan, (Antiq. 17, 9. 3, ) between which two events the seven days’ mourning appointed for his father by Archelaus intervened, (Ant. 17, 8. 4, de bell. Jud. 2, 1.) Consequently the death of Herod would fall not far from seven days before the Passover in 750, and thus in the first eight days of Nisan, 750¹¹ U. C. This computation receives a remarkable confirmation from the fact mentioned by Josephus, that an eclipse of the moon occurred shortly before his death, Ant. 17, 6. 4. It has been shown by Ideler and Wurm¹² that such an eclipse of the moon, visible at Jerusalem, actually took place at that time, on the night of the 12th and the morning of the 13th of March, commencing, according to Ideler’s calculation, at lh. 48’ and ending at 4h. 12’. The visible full-moon in Nisan, or the 15th of Nisan, occurred in the year 750 U. C. on the 12th of April.¹³ If, therefore, Herod died about seven days earlier, or within the earliest days in April, it would well harmonize with the date of the lunar eclipse. But, since all these data prove that Herod died in the early part of Nisan,. 750, Jesus, because born during his reign, must have been born before Nisan, 750, and consequently the Dionysian era is at least four years too late. This is also the view now prevalent among chronologists. Anger, however, and a few others, believe that beyond this the time must remain undetermined.

Second datum. The star of the wise men mentioned in Matthew, Matt. 2:1–22. This affords ground for more definite calculation. It is true, indeed, that the philosophers’ star has not unfrequently been brought into the same category with the philosophers’ stone. It is clear, however, that such a suspicion, so far at least as it has no better foundation than the presumption, in advance, of the historical incredibility of the evangelical narrative, should not prevent our investigating the possibility of rendering this star subservient to the purpose of chronological inquiry.

First of all, the question arises, whether the narrative allows or obliges us to conceive of an actual star, or a group of actual stars; for, only upon this presumption, can its appearance be subjected to astronomical calculation. If, as many assume, it was an extraordinary meteor, created for a transient period, or if the whole story is a myth, this were impossible. Now, that we are obliged to conceive of a star, properly so called, and of course embraced within the limits of astronomy, is evident from the following reasons: First, the persons who first saw the star and perceived its import, were Magi, that is, according to the then prevalent meaning of the word, astronomers or astrologers by profession. Why Magi, and why are they so expressly designated by this and no other name, if the phenomenon were one which any ordinary observer could notice as well as they? Secondly, there is not a word in the passage which intimates that the ἀστήρ mentioned, was or was thought to be a miraculous appearance. What right, then, have we to presume it? Besides, if this were a supernatural star, would it not have been recorded by the Evangelist, with great distinctness, since a miracle like this finds no parallel in the New Testament. Thirdly, supposing this to have been a miraculous phenomenon, an extraordinary illumination of the Magi would have been still necessary, before they could have recognized it as betokening first a birth, and then the birth of the Jewish Messiah. Of such an illumination, there is no intimation in the passage. Herod appears to have been alarmed only at the appearance of the star at that time. Of the necessity of its connection with the birth of the Messiah, he expresses not the least doubt, (Matt. 2:2–3. Fourthly? on the other hand, the whole description of the star, obliges us to conceive of an ordinary star. Such is the purport of ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, Matt. 2:2 and Matt. 2:9, ) whether with Ideler we refer to the East and the eastern sky,¹⁴ or what is more probable, to the rising of the star, for which ἀματέλλειν is the usual word. Further, the προάγειν, (v. 9, ) i.e. the motion of the star in the sky, in the direction towards Bethlehem, to which place the Magi were then going, and the ατῆναι ¹⁵ over a region or a place, agree with this. That it was an ordinary star, is also supported by the fact, that it not only appeared to the Magi, in their own country, (v. Matt. 2:2, but also at a later period, when they were going to Bethlehem, (v. Matt. 2:9, and according to v. 16, ¹⁶ even two years later than when it first appeared to them. Finally, we gain a more distinct account of the star from the phrase in v. Matt. 2:2. It is the star of the Messiah, (ὁ ἀστὴρ αὐτοῦ scil. τοῦ βασιλεως τ. ᾿Λουδ.), and since the Magi believed it to indicate his birth, they must have regarded it in an astrological light. The destiny of individuals, it is well known, was thought to be decided by the position and course of the actual stars, at the time of their nativity.

On these grounds, there appear satisfactory reasons for believing, that we are both authorized and obliged by the account in Matthew, to regard the appearance of the star, mentioned by him, as a means of ascertaining the year in which Jesus was born.

Let us now inquire, whether the expectations entertained in regard to the Messiah, or the history of Astrology do not enable us to decide upon something more definite in regard to the nature of the star. The Magi immediately gave an account of the star they had seen, it appears, to Herod (v. Matt. 2:2, Matt. 2:3), and he conversed with them privately (λάθρα) upon the date of the star’s appearance (v. Matt. 2:7), and gave them certain commissions in reference to the new-born Messiah. Still, the idea of a star, significant of the birth of the Jewish king, appears not to have proceeded originally from the Magi, but to have been already a part of the popular faith. For not only do they speak of the star of the Messiah, as of a thing well known and universally expected— “we have seen his star in the East”—and the hearers make no farther inquiry in respect to its connection with the birth of the Messiah, but all Jerusalem, i.e. even if hyperbolically used, a large part of Jerusalem, was thrown into excitement equally with Herod, by this declaration of the Magi, and of course must have believed in the significancy of the celestial phenomenon. In admitting, as we must admit, that the Christology of that age expected the appearance of a star as the sign of the Messiah’s birth, we do no violence to the historical character of the narrative; for this expectation, in an age so much devoted to astrology as that, is not only in the highest degree natural, but may also be proved from other historical facts. Winer in the labored and thorough article on the star of the wise men, in his Bibl. Realwört. remarks: “That according to the astrological faith of the ancient world, extraordinary events, especially the birth and death of distinguished, or exalted men, was indicated by heavenly bodies, particularly comets, and by constellations, is well known: comp. Lucan. 1, 529. Suet. Caes. 83. Senec. Nat Q. 1, 1. Joseph, bell. Jud. 6, 5. 3. Serv. ad Virg. Eel. 9, 47. Justin. 37, 2. Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 12. That the Jews also connected a celestial phenomenon with the birth of their Messiah, both the astrological tendency of the age and the passage in Num. 24:17 (“there shall come a Star out of Jacob”) early regarded as Messianic, scarcely permit us to doubt. The belief in the star of the Messiah, receives its earliest historical confirmation, however, for the period after Christ from the B. Sohar and Pesita Sotarta; comp. Berthold Christ, p. 55 sq.” Besides the passage in Matthew, and the translation of the passage Num. 24:17 in the Targum (of Onkelos), may be cited as the most ancient concurrent testimony, the passage from the Testament. XII. Patriarchum,¹⁷ test. Levi, 18: καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον αὐτοῦ ἐν οὐρανῶ ὡς βασιλέως, φωτίζον φῶς γνώσεως κ.τ.λ., and the appearance of the Pseudo-Messiah in the time of Hadrian, who, with reference to that passage in Numbers, assumed the name בָד כּוֹכְבָא (Son of the Star),¹⁸ and on this very account found such a decided obedience on the part of the Jews, who imagined that in him the ancient prophecy of Balaam was fulfilled. Late embellishments, entirely fabulous, of the star mentioned in Matthew, occur in the apocryphal gospels, and in some of the church fathers; of these, Philo, Cod. Apocr. I. 390, has given a learned account. The expectation of a star of the Messiah, must hence be assumed as having already formed a part of the faith of the Jewish nation. Even the mythic view cannot deny it, because in that case, it would be stripped of every means of accounting for the origin of the gospel narrative.¹⁹

The merit of having first made the star, mentioned in Matthew, regarded in an astronomical and chronological view, the corner stone of his investigations in respect to the year of Christ’s birth, belongs to the celebrated astronomer Kepler. Although violently opposed by his contemporaries, Roslin and Cabrisius, he published several writings upon this subject.²⁰ The chronological importance of Kepler’s views, after having been long forgotten, was again first²¹ pointed out by the learned Danish bishop Munter, and in consequence of this, the theory has been adopted and carried still farther by the modern astronomers, Pfaff,²² Schubert,²³ Ideler and Encke. While theologians, in the age of Kepler were warmly debating the year of Christ’s birth, there appeared towards the end of the year 1603 a phenomenon in the starry heavens, which led this celebrated astronomer also into the ranks of the combatants. In that year, on the 17th of December, a conjunction of the two planets Jupiter and Saturn occurred. In March 1604, Mars approached and in the autumn a new fixed star, which stood in the vicinity of those two planets in the eastern foot of Serpentarius,²⁴ and which, though at first a star of the first magnitude and shining very brightly, gradually faded, till in October 1605 it was hardly to be seen, and finally in March 1606 it entirely disappeared.

Aware that astrologers at all times, and therefore no doubt the Magi of Matthew, attached great importance to the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which occurs in about every twenty years, and on that account had even divided the Zodiac, through which the former completes its course in nearly 800 years, into four trigons,²⁵ the learned Kepler was led to inquire whether such a conjunction might not have occurred shortly before the beginning of the Dionysian era, and thus afford a basis for an historical calculation in respect to the birth of Jesus. He attained the remarkable result, that this conjunction actually occurred three times in the year 747 U. C, in the last half of Pisces near Aries, while in the spring of the next year, the planet Mars was added, and he explained the star, therefore, which the Magi from the east saw at the birth of Christ, as identical with the conjunction²⁶ of these three superior planets, to which an extraordinary star, like the new star in his own age in the foot of Serpentarius, might possibly have been added. The birth of Jesus, however, he placed in the year 748 U. C.

Ideler, pursuing still further the theory of Kepler, has given us two calculations of the conjunctions of these planets, in his Manual of Chronology (Handb. d. Chronol II 406, 407) and in his textbook of Chronology (Lehrb. d. ChronoL 428, 429), of which the last, and according to Encke, the most accurate, gives the following results in respect to the three planetary conjunctions: viz. the first occurred on the 29th of May in the 21° of Pisces, (before sunrise the planets in the eastern sky were visible, and Jupiter and Saturn were only one degree apart from each other); the second, on the 1st of October in the 18° of Pisces; and the third, on the 5th of December in the 16° of Pisces. The birth of Jesus is accordingly placed by Ideler in the year 747 U. C, as Sanelemente on other grounds, which Ideler approves of, had done before him.

These, however, cannot be regarded as valid, partly because they are irreconcilable with the two chronological data we have still to consider, and partly because they are at variance with the narrative in the gospel. For as we have seen, in the note on p. 174, the Magi did not go to Bethlehem till two years after the time at which they first saw the star of the Messiah. The supposition that Jesus was born two years before their arrival, though not impossible in itself, is expressly excluded by the narrative. The entire representation of Matthew leaves the impression, that the Magi arrived at Bethlehem shortly after his birth, especially v. 1, τοῦ δὲ Λησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἰδοὺ—παρεγένοντο; comp. v. 10. Bethlehem also is represented in Matthew, as only the temporary place of residence of the parents of Jesus, not as their usual dwelling-place. If, therefore, the arrival of the Magi was almost coincident with the birth²⁷ of Jesus, and not till two years after the appearance of the star, it follows, since the star appeared in the year 747 U. C, that Jesus was born two years later, that is, not earlier than some time in the course of the year 749 U. C, or if with Kepler, we date from the conjunction of Mars in the spring of 748, not later than the beginning of the year 750.

The astrological significancy of the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and that too, in Pisces, as it occurred in the year 747 U. C. derives a remarkable confirmation from a passage of the learned Rabbi Abarbanel,²⁸ (in his commentary on Daniel, entitled מיני השׁעה, Fountains of Salvation, p. 83. Amst. 1547,4to). All the changes of the sublunar world, he says, depend, in the opinion of those versed in the stars, upon the variable positions of the planets. The most important of all was when Jupiter and Saturn come into conjunction. He there speaks of the trigons mentioned above, and the different periods of the conjunctions supposed to exert more or less influence upon mundane events. In what part of the Zodiac the most potent conj unction occurs, can only be decided by experience. None has been more important than that which occurred in Pisces, in the year of the creation 2365, three years before the birth of Moses. After endeavoring to show on five cabbalistic grounds, that Pisces is the proper constellation²⁹ of the Israelites, he gives a sketch of the principal events in history, in connection with the place of every conjunction. In conclusion, he says: “A short time since, (A. M. 5224 or A. D. 1463,) one of the most potent conjunctions of these two planets again occurred in Pisces, and it is not to be doubted that it resembled that seen at the time of Moses, and was a precursor of the birth of the divine man, the Messiah.”³⁰ With this evidence in favor of the correctness of the view, originally proposed by Kepler, in respect to the star of the wise men, I should deem it strange if it were entirely without foundation; and still more strange, that in that case it should harmonize so well with the other calculations of the birth of Jesus.

Assuming this view then to be correct, Jesus must have been born, in accordance with what has already been observed, not in 747 or 748, but in 749 or at farthest 750 U. C. But this computation is rendered still more probable by another combination, now to be referred to. Kepler ventured the conjecture, in which he is followed by Ebrard, that there might have been an extraordinary star, of the kind seen in Serpentarius, or a comet, in the neighborhood of the conjunction already mentioned. Ideler rejects it, for the sole reason that it “is an hypothesis, which in his view we are not obliged to call in to our aid.” On astronomical grounds, certainly, the appearance of such new stars involves nothing incredible. The well known astronomer, von Littrow, in the section of his work³¹ on “New and Missing Stars,” observes: “Great as may be the revolutions which take place on the surface of those fixed stars, which are subject to this alternation of light—what entirely different changes may those others have experienced, which in regions of the firmament where no star had ever been before, appeared to blaze up in clear flames and in them to disappear, perhaps forever.” Then he gives a brief history of these stars, which have ever excited the particular attention of astronomers. Among these belongs the star discovered by Kepler in the foot of Serpentarius. I make only a single extract, relating to the appearance of a star of special interest. “In the year 1572, on the 11th of November,” says Littrow, “Tycho, on passing at night from his chemical laboratory to the observatory, through the court of his house, observed in the constellation, Cassiopeia, at a place where before he had only seen very small stars, a new star of uncommon magnitude. It was so bright, that it surpassed even Jupiter and Venus in splendor, and was visible even in the day-time. During the whole time it was visible, Tycho could observe no parallax or change in its position. At the end of one year, however, it gradually diminished, and at length in March, 1574, sixteen months after its discovery, entirely disappeared, since which, all traces of it have been lost. When it first appeared, its light was of a dazzling white color; in January, 1573, two months after its discovery, it became yellowish; in a few months, it assumed a reddish hue, like Mars or Aldebaran; and in the beginning of the year 1574, two or three months before its total disappearance, it glimmered only with a grey or lead colored light, similar to that of Saturn.”

What now, if the existence of a star like this, hot far from the birth of Christ could be historically proved? The conjunction which occurred would then not only appear much more remarkable, but it could hardly be doubted, that the journey of the Magi to Jerusalem should be placed in close connection with the appearance of this new star. For the possibility of this proof, I am indebted to a notice in Münter,³² who was only prevented from using it, on account of having placed the year of Christ’s birth, chiefly upon other grounds, at the beginning of that conjunction, i.e. in the year 747. I cannot repress my surprise, however, that almost nowhere else, not even in Littrow, is it cited. Münter says: “the Chinese astronomical tables inform us, that a new star appeared at a time which would correspond with the fourth year before the birth of Christ, according to our usual mode of computation. In a note upon this, the work from which this notice is borrowed is mentioned,³³ and in that it is stated four years ante aeram vulgarem: Stella nova in coelo per 70 et amplius dies. This notice³⁴ was to me the more striking, from having, long before it came to my knowledge, placed the birth of Christ on the same year, 750.

Pingré³⁵ and Mailla³⁶ call the new star a comet Both maintain two comets, of which one is related to have appeared in the year 5, the other in the year 4 B. C. Still, as Pingre conjectures, it was only a single one, since the descriptions given do not vary from each other. The first, so called, appeared, according to Pingré, in the first and second month in the constellation Nieou (Caput Capricornies); according to Mailla à l’ étoile Kien-nieou. The second appeared auxetoiles Ho-Kou (a de l’Aigle et etoiles voisines) au nord de la constellation Kien-nieou (partie du Capricorne). Consequently they appeared in nearly the same place in the firmament, only the second, so called, had then advanced somewhat further towards the north. True, the former appeared in the first two months of the year and the latter in the third month; but, then, the former must also have been visible in the third month, since it is expressly added that it was visible seventy days, and thus more than two months. But if the two comets are identical, this comet must have appeared in the first three months of the Chinese calendar (February to April) in the year 4 B. C. or 750 U. C. The erroneous computation of the time of its appearance, is accounted for by the fact that it is given according to the date of the reign of Gay-ti, the emperor at the time. The comet appeared in the second year of the era Kien-ping,³⁷ established by this monarch on his accession to the throne. We need only to assume, therefore, that the appearance of the star occurred at the end of this year, in order to understand how a date of two different years is assigned by chronologers.—If now the star of the Magi is identical with this star observed by the Chinese, we obtain for their journey to Jerusalem and their sojourn there the fixed date, February to April, 750 U. C.

Combining this Chinese observation of a new star, which could hardly have been borrowed from Christian sources, with the star of the Magi in Matthew, the case stands as follows: Already had the conjunction of the planets Jupiter, Saturn and Mars, which occurred in the constellation Pisces in the years 747 and 748, excited the expectation, among the eastern astrologers, of some great event about to take place. But when afterwards the extraordinary star was added, they immediately commenced their journey in search of the new-born King. This perhaps will best explain,³⁸ why they did not reach Jerusalem till a considerable time after the first conjunction. Supposing this combination to be correct, we again have the beginning of the year 750, and not the year 747,³⁹ as the date of Christ’s birth.

In connection with the view now presented, it may be added that the appearance of the star when the Magi were on their way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem (Matt. 2:9–10) and its going before (προῆγεν) them, are in evident accordance, on this theory, with the real facts. Let us commence with the planets Jupiter and Saturn, whose position for the month of February, 750 U. C. I take, because I hold this year and month to be the time at which Jesus was most probably born. According to the astronomer, Dr. Goldschmidt of Göttingen, to whom I beg leave to return very cordial thanks for the calculations which follow, the geocentric longitude of Jupiter on the first of February 750 was 55° 58’; that of Saturn 14° 17’. Both planets were then visible. Jupiter culminated at 6 o’clock and 42 minutes, and set in the latitude of Jerusalem 1 hour and 32 minutes after midnight, 22° 48’ north of west. Saturn culminated at 4 o’clock and 4 minutes, and set at 10 o’clock and 13 minutes P. M., 4° 17’ north of west. Since, therefore, they were now 41° apart, only one of the two could come into the account. Hence, perhaps the most probable view is, that the star which went before the Magi, was the new star mentioned above. In that case they must have made their journey to Bethlehem in the morning; for the constellation, Capricorn, in which it appeared, stood in the south-eastern sky, in the month of February, only in the morning. Nothing is more natural than that the thoughts of the Magi, as, full of expectation they were on the way to Bethlehem, should have been employed upon the celestial body which had brought them to Jerusalem in quest of the Messiah, and that when it again shone upon their path, they should have been filled with joy (Matt 2:10). Its appearance at that time, they would naturally regard as a good omen; and the more, from its seeming to move in the same direction with the road as if to be their guide. And when Bethlehem, the object of their search, came in sight on the summit of an eminence, they saw the star standing over it. Joyfully they hastened along, and came into the house, where they found the infant Saviour.

1) Nura loci Mr. 16:9–20, et Jo. 21, genuini sint nec ne indagatur eo fine, ut aditus ad histor. apparitionum J. Ch. rite conscribendam aperiatur. Götting. 1839, 8vo.

2) Auslegung und Kritik der apokalypt. Literatur des Alien and Neuen Testaments, 1 JBeitr. die 70 Wochen des Proph. Daniel. Nebsteiner hist. krit. Untersuchung über den Sinn, etc., der Worte Jesu von s. Parusie in den Evang. Götting. 1839.

3) We reckon here and throughout this Article from the foundation of Rome, in order to have a fixed standard different from the year of Christ’s birth, and by which the latter may be measured. The year of Rome (U. C.) can be easily changed into the erroneous but current year of the Dionysian era.

4) See his Leben Jesu, 3te Aufl. S. 49 sq., where the works on this question are cited.

5) Dio 49. 22, incorrectly places the storming of Jerusalem in the consulate of Claudius and Norbanus, or 716 U. C. Comp. Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. II. 390, and Anger, p. 7.

6) The passage reads thus: ὑπατεύοντος έν Ῥώμῃ Μαρκου ᾿Αγρίππα καὶ Κανινίου Τάλλου, ἐπὶ τῆς πεμπτῆς καὶ ὀγδοηκοστῆς καὶ ἑκατοστῆς ᾿Ολυμπιάδος, τ ῷ τ ρ τ ῶ μ η ν ί, τῆ ἑορτῆ τῆς νηστείας, ὥσπερ ἐκ περιτροπῆς τῆς γενομένης ἐπὶ Πουπηΐου τοῖς ᾿Λουδαίοις συμφορᾶς—καὶ γὰρ ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνου τῆ αὐτῇ ἑάλωσαν ἡμέρᾳ—υετὰ ἔτη εἴκοσι καὶ ἑπτά. Anger, however, p. 191 sq., differs in respect to the month, and places the storming of Jerusalem on the tenth of Tishri. His reasons are: (1) Antigonus is said in Ant. 20, 10, to have reigned in ail, three years and three months. But since, according to Ant. 14, 13.10, he commenced reigning shortly after Pentecost, 714, his reign must have extended longer than to Sivan, 717. This argument, however, is nothing but a mistake in respect to the principle on which the reign of the Jewish kings was calculated, of which more presently. According to this principle, Antigonus, even if he began to reign at Pentecost, 714, had reigned three years up to Nisan 717. Consequently, three years and three months would exactly bring us to the third month, (Sivan,) 717. (2) The expression ἑορτὴ τῆς νηστείας, Anger thinks, can only be understood of the fast-day, properly so called, the day of atonement or the 10th of Tishri. But here, we reply, is express mention made of a fast-day which fell in the third month, i.e. of a fast-day in Sivan and not in Tishri. Probably this fast was in commemoration of the suspension of the daily sacrifice in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, in Sivan, 168 B, C, which continued till the 25th of Kisleu, 165 B.C., and constituted the three and a half years in Daniel 9:27. 12:7, 11. Comp. 11:31. [The last sentence is the substance of the latter part of a long and unessential note.—Tr.]

7) Gemara bab. tract. ראש השנה c. 1. fol. 3. p. 1. ed. Amstelod. אין מונין להם למלכים אלא מניסן, “Non numerant in regibus nisi a Nisano, חסדא לא שנו אלא למלכי ישראל אמר ר “dixit R. Chasda: hoc non docent nisi deregibus lsraelitarum. Ibid. fol. 2. p. 2, ניסן ראש השנה למלכים ויום אחד בשנץ שנה חשוב, “Nisan initium anni regibus; ac dies quidem unus in anna instar anni computatur.” ibid. חשוב שנה **** יום אחד, “unus dies in anni fine pro anna numeratur.” Comp. Anger, p. 9, who has not recognized, however, this mode of computation in Josephus.

8) Epist. ad P. Ant. Pagiuui de nummis Herodis, Ant. Opp. torn. 11. pp. 646–665.

9) We have three coins still existing, with the inscription, ΗΡΩΔΗΣ ΤΕΤΡΑΧΗΣ L. ΜΓ, struck therefore in the forty-third year of his reign. Vaillant aiad Galland claim to have seen another coin with the date ΜΔ, but the existence of such a coin is justly doubted; comp. Eckhel doctr. Numorum vett. III. pp. 486–489 Sanclement. de vulg. aerae emendatione, III. 1.

10) With this accords the statement of Josephus, Ant. 18, 2. 1, that the census of Quirinus was taken in the 37th year after the battle of Actium. For since this, according to Dio 51, 1 and 50, 10, was fought on the 2d of Sept., 723 U. C, (31 B. C.,) the thirty-seventh year after that began with the 2d of Sept. 759.

11) Some chronologists, as Usher (Annales vet et nov. Test, ad ann. IV, a. Ch. p. 570,) Noris, S. 654, and others, relying upon the apocryphal statement in the tract, מגלה תענית, place the death of Herod on the 25th of November. Comp. on the other hand Ideler, Handb. II. 393, and Anger, p. 9,

12) In order to obtain an astronomical datum raised above all doubt, Wurm has taken the praise-worthy trouble, to calculate all the lunar eclipses from the year 6 to 1 B.C., and in Bengel’s Archiv, Bd. 2. S. 54, has given the result in a table. It appears in respect to the years 750 and 751, which alone came into account in calculating the date of Herod’s death, that in 750 only one eclipse of the moon visible in Jerusalem occurred,—that above mentioned; and in 751 none at all. The nearest preceding lunar eclipse visible in Jerusalem, occurred on the 15th of Sept., 749. Another splendid confirmation of the fact that Herod must have died not far from Easter, 750.

13) Comp. Piper, de externa vitae Jesu chronologia recte constituenda. Gött. 1835. 4to. p. 25.

14) Ideler who understands by the star a constellation of Jupiter and Saturn, supposes the word ἀνατολή to refer to their first conjunction, which occurred in the east. As we hold the same view in respect to the constellation, there is really no necessity upon us to raise any objection. But the passage in Matthew hardly supports, we apprehend, this explanation. For what connection would the fact that the Magi had “seen the star in the eastern sky,” have with the question, “where is he that is born king of the Jews?” On the other hand, the rising (ἀνατολή) of the star, in the view of astrologers, stood in undeniable connection with the birth of the Messiah. The mention of that ἀνατολή may also, perhaps, explain the inquiry of Herod in respect to the time τοῦ φαινομένου ἀστέρος, the answer to which would depend of course upon the knowledge of the Magi in respect to this point.