such a conjunction occurred June, Aug., and Dec., U.c. 747 = B. C. 7. $ 60. "Dr. Münter, the late bishop of Sceland in Denmark, recalled attention to Kepler's investigations. In Abarbanel's commentary on Daniel' he found a passage in which this rabbi says, that the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces (which astrologers make the dominant star of Palestine) is the signal of Messiah's coming."

$61. Ideler has procured from Encke an exact calculation of the conjunction investigated by Kepler. It appears that "the two planets came in conjunction 29 May, B.C. 7, in the 21st degree of Pisces, were visible in the East before sunrise, and only one degree apart. In the middle of September both came in opposition to the Sun at midnight in the south: the difference in longitude was ths of a degree. Both were retrograde and again approached each other. On 1 Oct. a second conjunction took place in the 18th degree of Pisces, and on 5 Dec. a third in the 16th degree. On both occasions the difference in longitude was only one degree."

Ideler argues, that if Jewish astrologers did really entertain great expectations in connexion with such a conjunction, this particular conjunction was so remarkable that it might well attract their attention as a phenomenon of extreme significance. "Thrice the two planets passed each other, came very near in longitude, and in this state remained visible for months. The first conjunction in the East, ev Ty avaтoλn, excited the attention of some magi. They were expecting the Messiah...On their arrival at Jerusalem the planets were once more in conjunction and in the South at evening. They followed that direction, and it brought them to the place." Ideler therefore conceives that the arrival of the magi in Jerusalem occurred late in the year 7 B.C.

§ 62. On this investigation I would only remark, that the miraculous nature of the star, its reappearance, its motion, and becoming stationary over the place where the Child was, are nowise inconsistent with the view taken by Kepler, Münter, and Ideler. Neither is it incredible that Divine Providence may have been pleased to use for its own purposes an astrological belief

1

Maajne hashuah (Fountains of Salvation), p. 83. ff. Amsterdam, 1547, 4to.

which we have reason to think was entertained by the Jews, and perhaps by the Chaldeans, in connexion with the expectation, then rife all over the East, as Tacitus and Suetonius tell us, of the birth of a great monarch. The astronomical phenomenon, it may be, attracted their attention. But perhaps it was accompanied by some extraordinary appearance, a star, or meteor, never before observed. And it is not a little curious that the third conjunction, which took place in the very centre of the sign Pisces, occurred precisely two years before the date which I have assigned to the Nativity. The first observation "of the appearing of the star," must have preceded the Nativity by that length of time: else why is it written that Herod gave orders for the destruction of the children ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω, "from the child of two years and under, in accordance with the time which he had carefully ascertained of the magi?" That conjunction (and the first appearance of the extraordinary star?) occurred 5 Dec. B. c. 7. Our date of the Nativity is about 8th Dec. B. c. 5.

It is evident, from the order of S. Luke's narrative, that the arrival of the magi and the flight into Egypt must be placed after the Presentation in the Temple: i. e. not earlier than 18th January B.C. 4. Now S. Matthew's narrative implies that Herod was then in Jerusalem. And he was so at this time, as far as we can gather from the narrative of Josephus. When the zealots threw down the golden eagle from the gates of the temple, Herod was evidently on the spot. But immediately after the execution, which was followed the same night by the eclipse, he left Jerusalem, and returned thither no more alive.

SECTION II.

ON THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION.

$63. Ir is certain that the year of our Saviour's Passion must lie between A. D. 28 and 36. It cannot be placed earlier than A. D. 28, for the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke iii. 1) began in that year; nor later than A. D. 36, for the passover of that year was the last in the term of Pilate's procuratorship. For we know from Josephus (Ant. xviii. 4. 2) that Pilate, being dismissed by Vitellius from his government, and sent to answer before the emperor touching certain matters of which he was accused, on his arrival at Rome found Tiberius dead. Now Tiberius died in March, A. D. 37.-Since however, to the passover of A. D. 36, from the latest date that can be assigned to the Nativity, are at least 38 years, but the ministry of our Lord between the Baptism and the Passion occupied at most 34 years, therefore, if the Passion were in A. D. 36, Christ would have been at least 34 years old at His Baptism whence it seems the latest date that can be assigned to the Passion is A. D. 33, in which year our Lord was 36 years old, according to our conclusion in the preceding section, and not less than 34 years upon any computation. And in fact A. D. 33 is the latest date assigned by chronologists or commentators of any note. The year of the Passion is therefore to be sought among the six years A. D. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.

64. Now in discussing the question, which of these six years is truly the year of our Lord's Passion, it is of course necessary to examine the gospel history with much attention, if we may therein discover any further limiting circumstances than those which have been mentioned: the opinions also of the earliest ages of the church must be taken into consideration. It happens, however, that there is one element of our question which, if its strictness can be depended upon, will greatly narrow the range within which the selection is to be made; it

will therefore be well to consider this before we enter upon the argument from history and tradition.

If the year of a given event be doubtful to the extent of six or seven years, but its month-day (in any given calendar) known, and also its week-day, then if upon calculation it can be shown that in one only of the six or seven years the given month-day fell upon the given week-day, the question is solved: if this coincidence took place in two, or three, of the given years, the question is narrowed to that extent. This is just the state of the question with which we are here concerned. For first, the week-day of the Crucifixion is certainly known; it was a Friday, beyond doubt: secondly, the month-day is known; it was the day of the Jewish passover, the day on which the paschal lamb was sacrificed: i. e. the fourteenth of the month Nisan. Now the Jewish Calendar is lunar, and its relation to the moon's motion is well known: it was so adjusted that the particular vuxenμepov (beginning and ending at sunset) in course of which the moon came to the full, was called the 15th of Nisan. (Appendix; Inst. Chron. § 411.) For instance, if in a given year the paschal moon was at the full at any instant between sunset of a Thursday and sunset of a Friday, the day included between the two sunsets was the 15th Nisan. By astronomical calculation with good tables the exact instant of any given opposition of sun and moon may always be determined: and this being known, the week-day may always be had by an easy calculation, or by referring to tables constructed for that purpose. And here, in the following list, are the results of these calculations for each of the years from A.D. 28 to A. D. 33.

1 S. Matt. xxvii. 62. тý èπαúρLOV TIS ἐστίν μετὰ τὴν παρασκευήν, i. e. on the morrow which is after the preparation (sc. of the sabbath). The Crucifixion therefore was on the Friday. xxviii. 1. ós̟è dè σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων. S. Mark xv. 15. ἦν παρασκευή, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον (al. πρὸς σάββ.); xvi. 9. πρωΐ πρώτῃ σαββάτου. S. Luke xxiii. fin. καὶ τὸ μὲν σάββατον ἡσύχασαν κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν, τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββά των, &c. S. Joh. xix. 31. ἵνα μὴ μείνῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ σώματα ἐν τῷ σαβο

βάτῳ, ἐπεὶ παρασκευὴ ἦν (ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου). The term parasceue as denoting Friday occurs in an edict of Augustus preserved by Josephus Ant. xvi. 6. 2, in which the pfæfects in the East are forbidden to summon Jews before their tribunals év σάββασιν ἢ τῇ πρὸ ταύτης παρασκευῇ ἀπὸ ὥρας ἐννάτης. The Hebrew term is

wy, ereb shabbat,“sabbath eve." From this it appears that the parasceue, strictly speaking, began at the very hour when Christ gave up the ghost.

=

Of all these years, there is but one in which the 14th Nisan coincides with a Friday, (or more strictly with the vuxenμepov between sunset of Thursday and sunset of Friday). This is the year 29. In the year 30 it was not so, for the moon was at the full about four hours after sunset of Thursday, consequently the whole of Friday to sunset belonged to the fifteenth of Nisan. In the year 33 (which is Ussher's date) it may be a question whether the 14th Nisan was not 3 April Friday, for perhaps the before-mentioned rule of adjustment may not admit of being so rigorously interpreted but that the full-moon, occurring as it did about 24 hours before sunset, may have been conceived to belong more to the night of the vvx¤ýμepov 3-4 April = Friday - Saturday, than to the night of 2-3 April Thursday - Friday. So far then, the selection is limited to the two years 29 and 33: for certainly none of the other years verifies the given condition. It may be objected indeed to the first of these years, that the 18th March, some three or four days before the equinox, is an extremely early date for the passover, and that we ought therefore to take the other possible date for that same year, viz. 16 April. But this objection will be seen to be of no great moment, when it is considered that this very day, the 18th March, was regarded by the Western Church, prior to the Council of Nice, as the anterior paschal limit (see the Paschal Cycle of S. Hippolytus A. D. 222 in Inst. Chron. § 426.) In virtue then of this, which is the astronomical element of the question, the choice lies between these two years at most, and indeed, upon a rigorous application of the paschal rule, is limited to the former of the two2.

Dr. Hales, in order to reconcile his date of the Passion with this condition of the question, starts a strange hypo

thesis of an error in the Dominical or Solar Tables. Mr. Greswell has fallen upon the same hypothesis, and has be

stowed