o KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Februahy 1, 18S8. 



public may rest confidently assured that its apparition will 

 be in no way connected with the star described in the Gospel 



of Matthew. 



As to that record itself, it is singular that any doubt 

 should exist as to its meaning. 



That the story relates to an astronomical event is of course 

 certain. Had some meteorological phenomenon been in 

 question the narrative would unquestionably have been 

 otherwise worded. The event was certainly astronomical ; 

 the magi were certainly astronomers. Saying this is in 

 eftect saying that the magi were astrologers, and that the 

 event was chiefly interesting in its astrological aspect. 

 Farrar and Geikie in their lives of Christ follow all theo- 

 logians of any weight who have ever dealt with the narrative 

 of the Nativity in admitting this. 



But theologians seem to bs unconscious, one and all, of 

 the overwhelming difficulty in which this interpretation 

 lands them. "We find them placidly discussing the wide- 

 spread belief in astrological ideas and in the supposed 

 influence of the heavenly bodies ou the aflairs and fortunes 

 of the human race — not as if they were striving to get rid 

 of a great difliculty, but as if the discussion were part of 

 the explanation of the Star of Bethlehem. Not once, so 

 far as my own reading extends (and this subject has been 

 one about which I have read much) does any theologian 

 note that the ideas of astrologers were altogether erroneous, 

 and that confident faith in such fancies implies a degree of 

 ignorance, not to say superstition, which however natural in 

 the beginning of the Christian era, is entirely inconsistent 

 with the belief that this portion of the first Gospel is 

 inspired — as theologians understand inspiration.* 



But perceiving the absolute impossibilitj' of reconciling 

 the story of the star of Bethlehem and its manifestly 

 astrological significance with scientific facts, we are not 

 merely led but forced to inquire whether some outside 

 origin of the story may not be found. When we find that 

 the Ebionites, though naturally disposed to view with 

 special favour the Gospel of Matthew, rejected the story as 

 foreign to the genuine narrative, we are encouraged to 

 believe that decisive evidence on the subject must have 

 existed in their time, which should bs accessible also to us, 

 since the Ebionites were not profoundly learned. 



In reality the external origin of the tradition (once the 

 inquiry is suggested) is as obvious as daylight. 



The story of the star is told, in every detail, of the birth 

 of each of the sun-gods — Osiris, Horus, Mithras, Serapis, 

 and the rest.f But the original myth was not mythical at 

 all. It belonged simph' to the systematic observances which 

 appertained to sun-worship as regulated by an astronomical 

 and astrological priesthood. Each portion of the day deter- 

 mined by the sun's apparent motions was measured by 

 a.stronomical observation, from the dayspring of one day to 

 the dayspring of the next. In like manner each portion of 

 the year determined by the sun's motion above and below 

 the equator was measured by astronomical observations 

 which were in truth religious observances. 



* The erroneous ideas implied in this part of the narrative are 

 not alone. The " exceeding high mountain " from whose summit 

 " all the kingdoms of the earth and their glory " could be seen is 

 as consistent with the science of eighteen hundred years ago as the 

 star which appeared and disappeared and reappeared and linally 

 travelled before the magi on their seven-mile walk from Jerusalem 

 !o Bethlehem; but it is entirelj' inconsistent with the geography 

 as well as with the astronomy of scientific times. And it is hardly 

 necessary to say that certain passages relating to the end of the 

 world are written with manifest want of appreciation of the require- 

 ments of longitude and latitude and of a rotating world nearlv 

 200,000,000 of square miles in area. 



t Doubtless this was part of the evidence on which the Emperor 

 Hadrian, in the year 137, based his belief that the Christians of his 

 day wers worshippers of Serapis. 



The method of these observations is known, since it 

 remained in vogue long after actual sun-worship had died 

 out, and long after more exact methods of measuring the 

 sun's yearly movements had come into use. Each stage of 

 the sun's annual course was determined by the heliacal 

 rising of a certain star, that is, the rising of the star at 

 such a time that the star was just visible before the 

 approach of the sun to the horizon obliterated all fainter 

 lights from view. In variable climes this method would 

 have no exactness at all. Even in Egypt and Chaldea it 

 w;is but rough. But in point of fact all the methods 

 employed by worshippers of the heavenly bodies were 

 rough : for they were devised when as yet men knew little 

 of astronomy, and they remained sacred afterwards (as 

 always happens in such cases), despite their roughness and 

 simplicity, partly even because of these. 



Of all the epochs marking the sun's annual course the 

 winter solstice, or the time when the sun's gradual descent 

 below the equator ceases and merges into ascent, was the 

 most important and critical in ancient times. In the earlier 

 days of ignorance men must have feared lest the change 

 would never be brought about, the sun passing away 

 farther and fivrther south till he disappeared for ever, and 

 with him all heat and light and life. The recognition of 

 the fact that their god's southward course had ceased (that 

 he was standing still, as the word solstice implies) restored 

 hope to men's hearts, a hope changed to the certainty that 

 he would return, bringing life back to the world, so soon as 

 it was announced that he was moving northward from his 

 staying place. 



Later, when the religion of the sun was fairly established, 

 the heliacal rising of a particular star was the sign for 

 which the priests of the sun waited before they announced 

 to the people the birth of the god of the new year. And 

 therefore, later still, in every myth of the birth of the sun 

 god we find this observance forming a prominent part of the 

 story. 



We have, in foot, in the story of the Star of Bethlehem, 

 a simple repetition of what the priests of the sun actually 

 did. They watched the sun, whose heliacal rising was to 

 indicate the birth of the year god ; as soon as they had seen 

 that star in the east, just before the stars vanished with sun- 

 rise, they proclaimed the good news to the people. The 

 magi, or astrological priests, watched the star in the east ; 

 the magi saw the newh'-risen stars obliterated day after day 

 by the sun of the old year (the slaughter of the innocents) ; 

 the magi traced the course of the star in the east until, just 

 at the time of the solstice (December 25, according to the 

 old system), it came and stood over the place where the sun 

 god of the new j-ear was to be born, just showing above the 

 horizon as his first raj's proclaimed hLs approach. Then the 

 ange's or messengers of the magi announced the birth of the 

 sun god of the year. And lastly, the magi or high priests 

 oflered up the people's gifts of myrrh, frankincense, and 

 gold, all mystically typical of the solar worship — the sun 

 being, in fact, in the old astrological system, represented by 

 gold. 



Such was unquestionably the manner of announcing the 

 birth of the sun god by observation of the star- of his 

 nativity in sun-worshipping days — the details being essen- 

 tially astronomicitl, or rather astrological. Those who can 

 regard as accidental the agreement between all these details 

 and the details of a story which appears onl}' in one Gospel 

 and \\'as rejected by the ver^- race who accepted that Gospel 

 alone, must attach very little value to the evidence from 

 multiplied coincidences. 



If the explanation is rejected according to which this 

 account is mythical and interpolated, then we have to 

 accept the explanation given by leading theologians, accord- 



