# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Mai 1856_S139
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Dr. Seyffarth's Corrections, etc. 139

would be welcome to us, were the author moved by these hints to explain the reasons that led him to place the Lord's crucifixion on the Thursday, and to set forth how he intends to demonstrate the agreement of his assumption with the accounts of the evangelists, and in particular how, on the assumption of a crucifixion on Thursday, the harmony between the accounts of the various evangelists could be maintained.

Among other things, very gratifying to us is the light that has been kindled for us by Dr. Seyffarth concerning the correction of the Dionysian era. Through this it has also now become clear what Holy Scripture reports concerning the census at the time of Christ's birth. Historically, as already mentioned, censuses (lustra) took place in the years 9 B.C. and A.D. 6. Christ was born in the year preceding a Roman census, since it was at the time of the Lord's birth that the decree first went out that all the world should be taxed (Luke 2). Now since, on account of the two pairs of consuls inserted by Petavius, the events of this period must be moved back by 2 years, the lustra named would historically fall in the years 7 B.C. and A.D. 8. Yet another error, which has crept in since the Venerable Bede — that of letting the Dionysian era begin with the year 1 — must be removed, and the first year after Christ's birth must be called zero. Christ was therefore born on December 25 of the year 1 B.C.; the census designated in Luke 2 took place in the year zero, the following one in the year A.D. 7; and we must now date accordingly from here on.

For the sake of some of our readers we believe we must still remark that, although the LXX has proven itself more reliable than the Hebrew text with respect to certain numerical statements, we may nevertheless not concede to the LXX an unqualified priority over the Hebrew text, since it stands established that the Holy Scripture of the New Testament, in its citations, does not draw consistently — nor even predominantly — upon the LXX, but at least equally often goes back to the Hebrew text. Furthermore: the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in the year 5 B.C. is not to be identified (which the author himself does not wish either) with the star mentioned in Holy Scripture that indicated to the Magi the house of the Lord — rather, this star was a miraculous star. The matter most likely stands thus: that the Magi, at the onset of the conjunction pertaining to the Messiah, saw this newly appearing, wondrous star come forth, and it was this star (not the planets in conjunction) that guided them on their way to the house of the Savior Jesus Christ.

* * *