1846.] Time of the Death of Herod the Great. 171 714 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 Noris' 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. 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 1, 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, 759.3 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 1 Epist. ad P. Ant. Pagium de nummis Herodis, Ant. Opp. tom. 11. pp. 646665. We have three coins still existing, with the inscription, HP2AHE TETPAPXH2 L. MT, struck therefore in the forty-third year of his reign. Vaillant and Galland claim to have seen another coin with the date MA, 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. * 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. in the first eight days of Nisan, 7501 U. C. This computation receives a reinarkable 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 Wurm2 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 1h. 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.3 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, 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 1 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.ba, place the death of Herod on the 25th of November. Comp. on the other hand Ideler, Handb. II. 393, and Anger, p. 9. 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. 3 Comp. Piper, de externa vitae Jesu chronologia recte constituenda. Gött. 1835. 4to. p. 25. 184 6.] A literal Star seen by the Magi. 173 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? Secendly, there is not a word in the passage which intimates that the doing 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 phenonenon, 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 ¿v rỹ ávaroký, ἐν (v. 2 and 9,) whether with Ideler we refer to the East and the eastern sky,' or what is more probable, to the rising of the star, for which ἀνατέλλειν is the usual word. Further, the προάγειν, (ν. 9,) 1 Ideler who understands by the star a constellation of Jupiter and Saturn, supposes the word ¿varoλý 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 (ivaron) of the star, in the view of astrologers, stood in undeniable connection with the birth of the Messiah. The mention of that dvaroký may also, perhaps, explain the inquiry of Herod in respect to the time rov paivoμéDOV Tépos, the answer to which would depend of course upon the knowledge of the Magi in respect to this point. 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 otyvai1 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. 2,) but also at a later period, when they were going to Bethlehem, (v. 9,) and according to v. 16,2 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. 2. It is the star of the Messiah, (ó dorng avrov scil. τοῦ βασιλέως τ. Ἰουδ.), 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 1 In like manner Josephus says, de bell. Jud. 6, 5. 3, vñèρ tìν ñóðiν áσTрov ἔστη ῥομφαίᾳ παραπλήσιον, without thereby intending to affirm that the star stood fixed over the city. Strange to say, this v. 16-ånd dietovę kaì katwrépw-has led men of learning, not a few, (Lardner, the credibility of the gospel history; Münter, Stern der Weisen, and others,) to the opinion, that Christ was at least two years old in the life-time of Herod, and therefore must have been born at least two years before Herod's death. To this, it has been justly replied, that the reason assigned for the murder of the children of two years and under, in Bethlehem, by Herod, is not the time of Christ's birth, which Herod could not know, but the time which he had learned by inquiry of the Magi, i. e. according to v. 7, the time at which the star appeared. Comp. Anger, p. 10. Consequently the bloody decree of Herod followed about two years after the appearance of the star. But since this decree, according to v. 16, comp. v. 12, followed close upon the return of the Magi homewards, the star must have appeared to them also after the period of about two years. I may remark in passing, that the narrative thus understood, becomes at once disembarrassed of the objection made to its credibility on the ground, that the massacre of two-years-old children is improbable, because it would be too cruel and altogether superfluous, and because Herod would naturally have been satisfied with the death of the new-born infant. Just the reverse. For if he brought the appearance of the star, which took place two years before, into astrological connection with the birth of the Messiah, he must have caused precisely the two-years-old children to have been slain first of all, in order to make sure of the destruction of the Messianic child. 1846.] Celestial Phenomena significant of great Events. 175 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. 2, 3), and he conversed with them privately (λága) upon the date of the star's appearance (v. 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. 88. Senec. Nat. Q. 1, 1. Joseph. bell. Jud. 6, 5. 3. Serv. ad Virg. Ecl. 9, 47. Justin. 37, 2. Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 12. 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 perinit 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,' test. Levi, 18: xai dvarɛhei ά or qov a v That 'The Testament of the twelve patriarchs was written about A. D. 100. Comp. Wieseler, Zur Auslegung und Kritik S. 226, and especially S. 229, Note b. The tendency of that age to associate the destiny of men with the course |