Jan. 1, 1886.] 



KNOWLEDGE 



91 



Occp.sionally, however, we find them striking out both 

 at those who do and at those who do not examine matters 

 in the Bible which may be regarded as liaving a scientific 

 or historical bearing. I have m\-self been pei'sonallj 

 abused in the most streniiHUs fashion for saving — in 

 response too to special inquiry — that a certain descrip- 

 tion in the Bible did not (probably) rdlate to any known 

 celestial body, and as earnestly rebuked for expressing 

 inv opininn that ;i certain description in the Bible did 

 probably relate to a celestial jihenomenon of a well-known 

 class. 



The first subject is the Star of Bethlehem. Here 

 astronomy, following the rule of the Royal Astronomical 

 Society — Qu{ci[uid nifct notanduni — certainly has the 

 right, if it is not even urged b}- the sense of scientific 

 duty, to make inquiry : for here a star, observed by an 

 r.stronomical race the Chaldeans (as I suppose the Magi 

 to have been) is in question. However, here the class of 

 ])ersons ■who attribute to themselves— perhaps rather 

 fondh- — a specially religious chancier, have been before- 

 hand with the student of science, and have claimed to 

 give a scientific interpretation, or rather half-a-dozen 

 incongrous scientific interpretations, to the record of the 

 evangelist. ' 



Now, we cmnot overlook the fact that wherever the 

 heavenly bodies ?jre referred to in the Bible, they are 

 regarded as placed in the- heavens to be not only for 

 seasons but for signs. " The stars in their courses fotight 

 r.gainst Sisera," is a siying which in old time., no one 

 mi.sunderstood, — though nowadays some pretend to find 

 r. symbolical rather than an astrological significance in it. 

 It is perfectly obvious that even to the very latest date 

 covered by the books of the Bible the heavenly bodies 

 were regarded as not only influencing and indicating, but 

 as actually ailected by, the fortunes of the human race. As 

 the first book, nay the first chapter of the Bible, says 

 (like the Assyrian tablets from which it was apparently 

 derived), that the sun, moon, and stars were for signs, so 

 the last speaks of the sun turning black as sackcloth of 

 hair, of the moon becoming as blood, of the stars of 

 heaven falling to the earth ("even as a fig-tree casteth 

 her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind ') 

 ' -solely because the kings of this poor little earth of 

 ours, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and so 

 forth, were to be discomfited. It is as absurd to try to 

 blind oneself to these clear indications of the ideas very 

 naturallj- entertained in those days respectinw the sun, 

 moon, and star.s, as it is to attempt to overlook the mis- 

 taken ideas men had then formed about the shape and 

 dimensions of the earth, the laws according to which 

 rain, wind, storm, snow, hail, and other natural pheno- 

 mena are produced, the nature of epileptic and cataleptic 

 seizures, madness, idiocy, and a number of other matters, 

 which men nowadays begin fo understand but then knew 

 scarcely anything about. To imagine that revelation 

 should be of such a nature that it would make a Bacon 

 of a Moses, a Xewton of an Isaiah, a Priestley of a Luke, 

 or a Laplace of a Matthew, is surely to mock not to 

 reverence Deity, — at least it would be so if those who 

 thus teach could see the utterly absurd inferences dedu- 

 cible from what they seem to believe. 



Viewing matters as we find they actually were, it 

 becomes a matter of considerable interest to the student 

 of astronomy to ask whether any, and if any what 

 heavenly body, may possibly have been referred to in the 

 description given by the evangelist Matthew of what has 

 been called the Star of Bethlehem. Many imagine that 

 the star seen in 1.572 was the same orb which had blazed 

 out suddenly when Christ was born, and was regarded by 



his followers, afterwards, as indicating that he was the 

 appointed " Governor that should rule God's people 

 Israel." Some heavenly body, they say, which then 

 appeared, is certainly referred to by Matthew : may it 

 not have been the same which appeared in l-")72 ? There 

 is reason to believe that this is the same star which shone 

 out at intervals of about 312 to oU or 315 years before, 

 and may shine out in 1886 or 18S7 — to announce, perhaps, 

 as many imagine, the second (thoirgh according to the 

 star it "ought to be the sixth) coming of Christ. Whether 

 this is so or not a few months now will determine. But 

 reading Matthew's accoirnt as it stands it seems hardly 

 likely (though it is by no means absolutely impossible) 

 that it related to that particular orb. 



The place in Cassiopeia where the star of 1572 ap- 

 peared would in the beginning of the Christian era have 

 been about 36° from the North Pole (much further away 

 than now) and in about right ascension 22 h. 40 m. Thus 

 at midnight in the latitude of Jerusalem, on or about 

 Dec. 2.5, the star of 1-572, if it had then been shining, 

 would have been towards the north-west low down, 

 which was not the right direction for the house in 

 Bethlehem as probably approached from Jerus dem. 

 Earlier the star would have been higher up, and therefore 

 could hardly have been described as going " before them 

 till it came and stood over where the young child was." 

 Indeed could any star, or planet, or comet, be described 

 in these terms ? Manifestly (it seems to me) the 

 evangelist meant to describe a purely supernatural 

 phenomenon. 



Yet for expressing, in response to especial inquiry, this 

 very reasonable opinion, and rejecting as unreasonable 

 the idea that a star hundreds of thousands of millions of 

 miles from this earth, blazing out at tolerably regular 

 intervals of 31-1 years, on account probably of some 

 peculiarity in the movements of comet ic and meteoric 

 matter around it, had been as it were waited for in this 

 case (instead of being made to wait upon the coming of 

 the child, as the whole spirit of the evangelist's nar- 

 rative implies) I have been rebuked as if possessed by a 

 spirit of intensest hostility to religion itself. 



This is absurd enough ; but the absurdity becomes 

 more intense when coupled with a converse absurdity of 

 an equally ridiculous sort. 



There is a passage in the history of David which Beems 

 to me to have a manifestly astronomical interpretation, 

 and indeed — while perfectly in accordance (as so tmder- 

 stood) with what we know of the ideas of the ancient 

 Hebrews about such matters — to help to explain a verj' 

 remarkable feature of all the books of the Bible. 



The comet, most impressive and awe-inspiring of all 

 heavenly bodies, is nowhere mentioned in the Bible — 

 full though its pages are of passages showing how the 

 Hebrews were impressed by the wonders of the star- 

 depths. This is so remarkable that we are naturally led 

 to inquire whether under some other name comets may 

 not be referred to in the Bible. It seems likely on h 

 priori grounds that the Hebrews would regard comet.s, 

 even more confidently than other less impressionable races 

 did, as special messengers from God. And as Hebrew 

 writers did not hesitate to express their opinions on such 

 points, confidently saying, for example, that the heavenl}^ 

 bodies were for signs, that the stars in their courses 

 influenced the fortunes of a third-rate chief, and so forth, 

 they certainly would have described comets as celestial 

 messengers if they thought them so. 



Thus led, we examine passages where they actually 

 speak of celestial messengers, finding, to begin with, 

 that the word they used for such beings actually meant a 



