(2) Various attempts have been made to discover unusual astronomical phenomena at this time, which might have aroused the attention of the Magi. Kepler (De vero anno, ete. 1614) calculated that a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn took place in B.C. 7 ; Ideler (Handb. d. Chronol. ii. 399), and more recently Pritchard, have repeated the calculations, the latter showing (Memoirs of Royal Ast. Soc. xxv. 119) that three conjunctions took place between May and December B.c. 7. This
MAGI
conjunction (besides agreeing very well with the hint in Abarbanel, whatever that may be worth)
would certainly present a rare and splendid spec- | tacle, and would undoubtedly cause much interest |
to those engaged in the study of the stars. No difficulty would be caused by the use of ἀστήρ in Mt 2, for (in spite of Suidas, s.v. ἀστήρ) the word may Suieeenie= be employed for any sidereal 2 tea (at least in the popular language of NI, e.g. Lk 21%, Ac 27, He 11"; ef. also Schiifer in Brunck’s Ap. Rhod. ii. p. 206), while Lotz has remarked that, as neither the evangelist nor any authority of his seem to have seen the star, the word used is indifferent. But Pritchard has shown (‘Star of the Wise Men,’ in Smith’s DB) that this conjunction cannot be considered to have ΗΕ the Magi to Bethlehem or stood over
ethlehem at the time required by the story; possibly also some weight may be attached to his remark that a still closer conjunction took place in B.c. 66, which ought to have aroused similar interest. Wieseler (Chronol. Synops. 67) follows a suggestion of Kepler, that a peculiarly coloured evanescent star may have appear between Jupiter and Saturn, of the same kind as one which appeared at the similar conjunction observed by
epler in 1604. Wieseler further, adopting a hint supplied by Miinter (Stern der Weisen, 1827, in which work interest in Kepler’s suggestion was again aroused after a long interval), claims the sunpers of Chinese tables for the eppenratice of such a star in Feb. B.c. 4, and the moderate weight attached by him to this evidence seems (in spite of the ridicule of Strauss) to be justified. Accord- ingly he regards the evanescent star, not the con- junction, as the star of the Magi; Edersheim (op. cit. i. 211), by referring to two passages in the Midrashim eich represent the star of Messiah as appearing two years before His birth, is able to suggest further that the conjunction in B.c. 7 may have aroused the attention of the Magi, and the evanescent star of B.C. 4 have seemed (as it appar- ently well might) to guide them and stand over Bethlehem. On the other hand, the narrative implies that the star guiding the Magi to Bethlehem was believed to be the same star as that seen at its rising before; so we should either have to credit the Magi with a mistake (which seems im- probable under the circumstances), or to suppose that the evanescent star appeared twice (which is in conflict with the Chinese records, on which the mye depends).
e must therefore be content to believe that astronomical reasons prompted the Magi’s visit, but that it is doubtful whether the exact cause has as yet been ascertained. Considering the number of astronomical possibilities, this fact is not in itself surprising. But there is nothing in the language of Mt 2 to imply that the star is of such a kind as could not be shown to be subject to natural laws. The universal belief in ancient times that stars acted as guides (Winer, RW B® ii. 524), would serve to convince the Magi that this had happened in their case; their story,
which may have corresponded accurately enough to the apparent facts, is simply adopted without
comment in the Gospel. he question is not whether a star can lead men and stand over a place, but whether it can appear to do so; the passage is undoubtedly of ‘great poetical beauty’ (Holtzmann), but it does not follow that it rests
on no historical basis (cf. Weiss, op. cit. i. 265). A wooden interpretation of the text isin any case to be deprecated, whether adopted in the super- natural (asWordsworth, in Joc.) or anti-supernatural interest.
(4) The attempt to use the date of the Magi’s visit for establishing that of Christ’s birth, comes
MAGI
203
to very little. Commentators are unable to agree how soon after the birth the visit is to be placed ; the order of Herod would certainly be meant (as Euthymius already pointed out) to be inclusive, and would not show that the child was nearly two years old ; the astronomical data are too uncertain to be of any value. [But cf. art. CHRONOLOGY OF NT, vol. i. p. 403; and Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ? p. 215).
(5) Much criticism has been directed against the whole story in Mt 2; but a careful study of the writers who oppose it most strongly, would seem to show the difficulty of explaining it, even from a purely destructive point of view. It has been suggested that the visit of these Eastern sages would, if true, have made a great impression, and that accounts from other quarters would almost necessarily be expected; but the attitude of Herod, which would at once be suspected, would make the utmost secrecy desirable. It is admitted that the murder of the children is in keeping with Herod’s character (see Jos. Ant. XVII. vi. 5; BJ 1. Xxxlii. 4, 6); the number of children killed would be small (‘probably 20 at most,’ Edersheim, i. 214; Holtzmann exaggerates it); and those who remember the controversies on the ‘silence of Thucydides’ and ‘the silence of Eusebius’ will have no difficulty with ‘the silence of Josephus’ here. The references in Macrobius, Sat. ii. 4. 11 (Holtzmann, in loc., regards this asa certain allusion to our story), and Chalcidius, Tim. vii. 126, are too late in date to afford any clearly independent evidence, but the absence of confirmation cannot under the circumstances be regarded as unfavour- able to Mt 2 (for the earliest patristic allusions, see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ii. 2, 80). Lk follows entirely different sources from Mt in his account of Jesus’ childhood, and therefore the omission of any allusion to the Magi in the third Gospel can- not be regarded as surprising. The question how room is to be found for the Magi’s visit, so as to make a consistent story of the two narratives, is a difficult one, but the view of Wieseler (Chron. Synops. 152) may perhaps be considered satisfactory.