Matt. ii. 2). They were obliged to repair to the place on account of the
taxing, and immediately after the presentation in the temple, they
returned to Nazareth and dwelt there (Luke ii. 39). Had the visit of the
wise men occurred, as some think, six, or twelve, or eighteen months
after the birth, the question of Herod to "the chief priests and scribes
of the people" where "Christ _should be born_"--would have been quite
vain, as the infant might have been removed long before to another part
of the country. The wise men manifestly expected to see a _newly born_
infant, and hence they asked--"where is he that _is born_ King of the
Jews?" (Matt. ii. 2.) The evangelist also states expressly that they came
to Jerusalem "_when Jesus was born_" (Matt. ii. 1). At a subsequent
period they would have found the Holy Child, not at Bethlehem, but at
Nazareth.

The only plausible objection to this view of the matter is derived from
the statement that Herod "sent forth and slew all the children that were
in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, _from two years old and
under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the
wise men"_ (Matt. ii. 16). The king had ascertained from these sages
"what time the star appeared" (Matt. ii. 7), and they seem to have
informed him that it had been visible a year before. A Jewish child was
said to be two years old _when it had entered on its second year_ (see
Greswell's "Dissertations," vol. ii. 136); and, to make sure of his
prey, Herod murdered all the infants in Bethlehem and the neighbourhood
under the age of thirteen months. The wise men had not told him that the
child was a year old--it was obvious that they thought very
differently--but the tyrant butchered all who came, within the range of
suspicion. It is highly probable that the star announced the appearance
of the Messiah twelve months before he was born. Such an intimation was
given of the birth of Isaac, who was a remarkable type of Christ (Gen.