294 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2nd s. NO 67., April 11. '57. 



lieve, without there were clear evidence of what 

 there is none, viz. that the Virgin and her child 

 would be left many hours with the beasts in the 

 stable, by the shepherds or those whom they told 

 of "what the Lord had made known to them." 

 It cannot surely be improper to suppose that to 

 provide her with some humble quiet chamber, and 

 respectfully affectionate attendance for some little 

 while, was one of the purposes of that revelation 

 to the shepherds. Whilst as Nazareth was their 

 home, their own city, one would expect that they 

 would return thither, as soon as she could well 

 bear the journey. And now we turn to Luke, as 

 supplying us with the only distinct note of time 

 connected with the events of the infancy, by tell- 

 ing us that Joseph and Mary brought the child to 

 Jerusalem, "when the days of her purification 

 according to the law of Moses were accomplished" 

 (Luke ii. 22.). He adds, that when they had per- 

 formed all things according to the law of the 

 Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own 

 city Nazareth" (v. 39.). By thus asserting the 

 punctuality with which they observed the law, 

 respecting a mother's purification after the birth 

 of a male child, Luke has let us know that her 

 visit to the temple was at the close of forty days 

 after the nativity (Levit. xii. 2. 4. 6.) ; as well as 

 that they then retiirned to Nazareth. On the other 

 hand, the adoration of the child by the Magi ap- 

 pears from Matthew, with equal distinctness, to 

 have immediately preceded the flight into Egypt. 

 So that the ordinarily current notion, of their 

 finding the child in Bethlehem, involves the ne- 

 cessity of believing that their visit and departure, 

 and the journey into Egypt, and the abiding there 

 till Herod's death, and the travelling back into 

 the land of Israel, and the demur, but eventual 

 return to Nazareth, apparently by a circuitous 

 road (Matt. iii. 22.), and then their repairing to 

 the temple, though "afraid to go into Judasa," 

 all took place within forty- one days after Mary's 

 delivery. Surely no prejudices can make it rea- 

 sonable to cleave to such a belief, unsupported by 

 any distinct evidence, rather than admit that 

 when the Magi reached Jerusalem the child was 

 likely to be in Nazareth ; especially as its being 

 there accounts most becomingly for the reap- 

 pearance of the star, — on the not unwise rule of 

 its shrewd author, "NecDeus intersit, nisidignus 

 vindice nodus inciderit." 



For whereas the information which they had 

 obtained would induce the Magi to quit Jeru- 

 salem by the road leading to Bethlehem, some 

 other guidance was needed to direct them to the 

 child, if it was then in Nazareth. " And, lo, the 

 star which they saw in the east." And " When 

 they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great 

 joy" (Matt. ii. 9, 10.). 



Kepler, Winer, and Mr. Alford, have dragged 

 back the. nativity to A.u.c. 747. to make the Magi 



take their journey to Jerusalem, on seeing a con- 

 junction of Jupiter and Saturn on May 20. They 

 keep them five months on their road, (alleging 

 that it took Ezra four months, who was collecting 

 his countrymen by the way, and travelling with 

 flocks and herds for their sustenance,) to bring 

 them to Jerusalem just in time for a second con- 

 junction on Oct. 27; and they keep the Magi waiting 

 there for the reply of the Sanhedrim till Nov. 12, 

 that they might see the third conjunction "coming 

 to the meridian about 8 o'clock p.m. in the direc- 

 tion of Bethlehem." If the Magi had been astro- 

 logers, a conjunction of the superior planets 

 would have been a matter of previous calculation ; 

 being precisely such a calculation as the Hindoo 

 astrologers excelled in making; so that its appear- 

 ance could not have been a source of unantici- 

 pated joy. Nor indeed could such a conjunction 

 be a matter of surprise to any observer of the 

 heavens. For two superior planets do not rush 

 into conjunction, so as to be perceptibly much 

 nearer to each other one day than they were on the 

 preceding. Whilst, if Jupiter and Saturn were 

 indeed in close conjunction on Oct. 27, and again 

 on Nov. 12, one, if not both of them, must have 

 been geocentrically stationary in the course of 

 those few days. Without attempting the calcula- 

 tion, I cannot help thinking that the variations in 

 their relative distance, during the whole interval, 

 would be scarcely appreciable to the eye : so that 

 any exceeding great joy at what might be dis- 

 cerned of any such conjunction, at any particular 

 hour of Nov. 12, is quite unaccountable on this 

 theory. 



But to the real travellers towards Bethlehem, 

 its reappearance might well be a cause for ex- 

 ceeding great joy, as evidence that they were 

 graciously cared for ; and as bringing conviction 

 by its course that the road along which they were 

 going would have led them from their desired ob- 

 ject. But no conjunction, nor ordinarily existing 

 body in the heavens, could have done what this 

 stellar appearance did, as described by the evan- 

 gelist. 



The motion of a luminous object across the 

 field of vision is generally discernible; but its 

 motion directly from, or towards a spectator, can 

 only be discernible to him from its apparent di- 

 minution or enlargement, or from its being seen 

 to pass by objects in or near its course. This 

 star, therefore, must have moved at but a low 

 elevation within our atmosphere. We consistently 

 gather the same from its standing " over where the 

 child was." For though a planet, or a star in the 

 more remote heavens, may seem to be over a tree 

 or a house, when the line between it and our eye 

 passes over a summit or roof, the star would ap- 

 pear to be far away over some equal elevation 

 when we came to the tree or house. Whilst if it 

 appeared to be in the zenith, or directly over any 



