Customer Reviews

The Star of Bethlehem : The Legacy of the Magi

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The Star of Bethlehem is a perennially favorite topic for planetarium shows, articles, musings, sermons, and books. What could be left at this late date to say about it? Quite a lot, actually. Enough so that two new books, both titled "The Star of Bethlehem" (How original!) and both copyright 1999 are on my desk as I write.

The story about the Star is found only in the Gospel of Matthew. There are three possibilities: 1) The star was a myth - invented by the writer of Matthew or earlier Christians whom he followed, in order to give Jesus appropriately royal auspices for his birth. 2) The star was a miracle provided by God to guide the Magi, even perhaps visible only to them. 3) The star was a natural astronomical event or events. These three are obviously mutually exclusive and exhaustive. If either of the first two possibilities are correct, there is little more to be said; therefore both of our authors give them short shrift.

Both books cover some of the same material in about the same way. Jesus was *not* born on December 25 of 1 BC as worked out by the Scythian monastic scholar Dionysius Exiguus (Denny the Dwarf) in 525 AD. King Herod, of whom the Magi inquired about the birth, died in 4 BC. For other reasons, the birth is fairly firmly dated to between 6 and 4 BC. If the shepherds were `abiding with their flocks by night', the birth did not take place in December. For various reasons, these authors agree that Spring is more likely.

"The Star of Bethlehem - An Astronomer's View", by Mark Kidger, gives a review of all the various suggestions that have been made over the years, finally settling on a combination of events being the sign: a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces (the sign Kidger says is associated with the Jews - more on this later) between May and December of 7 BC, with Mars approaching this pair in February of 6 BC, followed by a near-occultation of Jupiter by the Moon in Pisces in February of 5 BC, and then, possibly a nova in March/April 5 BC, as suggested by some Korean and Chinese records.

I would have found this scenario plausible were it not for the second, and to my mind more interesting, book: "The Star of Bethlehem - The Legacy of the Magi" by Michael R. Molnar. There are two problems, as pointed out by Molnar, with the kinds of solutions reviewed, and those eventually suggested, by Kidger. Firstly, they tend to focus on what we as moderns would find to be visually compelling sights in the heavens. But this neglects the fact that the Magi were certainly *astrologers*, most likely Hellenistic rather than Babylonian in their astrological theories. Most of the events put forward would not have been significant to contemporary astrology. Kidger himself makes this point but does not seem to follow through with a close study of Hellenistic astrology as Molnar has made. Secondly, we have the advantage over the Magi of *knowing*, at least approximately, what the correct time frame is, then sifting through a small number a years to find the most significant events during those years. We have to imagine an ongoing community of astrologers, scanning the skies for generations perhaps, and imagine what would have been absolutely unique over many years, and compelling enough to make them undertake an arduous journey. In this light, Kidger's series of events are not so special.

Molnar made a key discovery, beginning with a study of ancient coins, which often incorporated astrological symbols, that Aries was the constellation contemporary astrologers believed controlled the Levant, of which Judea was a part. The identification of Pisces with the Jews is Medieval and hence anachronistic in this context.

When the Magi say "...we have seen his star in the east...", they would have been referring to the helical rising of a star or planet - that is, when it is newly visible in the morning sky rising ahead of the sun. Jupiter had its heliacal rising on April 17 of 6 BC in Aries. On that same day, the moon occulted Jupiter for the second time in a row (previously on March 20). This would have greatly increased the astrological significance of kingly Jupiter. Molnar covers about half a dozen other astrological portents for this day, involving rulers of the trines, exaltations, attendance, and beneficent planets, that space does not permit me to explain in detail. In terms of astrological import, this day is absolutely unique for hundreds of years, and Molnar makes a strong case, to my mind, that he has indeed found the origin of the curious story in Matthew.

Astronomers tend to be instantly dismissive of anything having to do with astrology, even to the extent of neglecting its proper application to a historical problem such as this one. Astrology, like it or not, is an important part of the history of human thought, and of the history of astronomy itself, which grew out of it. Michael Molnar is to be congratulated for shedding light on this ancient way of thinking.

This book surprised the heck out of me. I expected another typical rundown of the usual astronomical suspects (comets, supernova, planetary massings and conjunctions, etc.) but was pleasantly surprised to find instead a very serious and scholarly treatment of first century astrology. As a certified skeptic, I've always given fairly short-shrift to astrology in general, but until reading Molnar's book, I don't think I ever understood how truly complex and technical it is. Certainly the "science" of the ancient world, Molnar argues that without such an understanding of astrology, the biblical clues as to the identity are simply missed by virtually all researchers of the star of Bethlehem. For good reason, most astronomers and biblical scholars have largely avoided the role of astrology other than casual mentions. Instead, they have focused on astronomical phenomena that are visually striking, and which they believe would have been meaningful to the visitors from the east.

Molnar takes the astrological bull by the horns, and, combined with the very novel angle of first century coinage, provides a compelling and persuasive new theory of the true nature of the Matthean "star." Briefly, Molnar points to the language of the original Greek text of Matthew 2, and identifies unmistakable allusions to a star's helical rising, and to features of a planet's "retrograde" motion (he argues that the Greek for "went before" and "stood over" are clearly references to a retrograde loop and stationary point).

In a very well documented and easily readable account, Molnar traces the evidence to a helical rising and subsequent lunar occultation of Jupiter in April of 6 BC. After this event, which took place in the constellation of Aries, Jupiter proceeded to travel east, go retrograde, and resume its eastward journey over the next several months. Though the occultation would not have been observable (it happened after noon on April 17th), Molnar argues that this is inconsequential since all astrology was done via charts based on Ptolemy's tables of planetary positions anyway. Astrologers were much more interested in the significance of their charts and rarely made any effort to observe the events they portrayed. Furthermore, many significant astrological events are visually unimpressive even if they are observable.

I don't know if Molnar is right. Others take the approach that the star must have been a series of conjunctions or nova phenomenon (Kidger and Hughes). Some say the whole event is a myth (Gardner). Molnar's contribution is certainly worth reading and has gained the approval of some fine authorities (Gingerich and Trimble both wrote jacket reviews).

Molnar's book has given me one of the few 'conversion' episodes in my life. He has shown that all the previous claims about the Star of Bethlehem are provably wrong. The simple reason is that they are all *astronomical* spectaculars (that would impress modern astronomers) while the only people who need to be impressed are the *Magi* (i.e., Persian astrologers) who only pay attention to *astrological* spectaculars. That is, there is no place for a comet on a horoscope, the Magi would never have looked up to spot a supernova, and triple conjunctions are astrologically meaningless. Wow, Molnar is right! The application of modern ideals to ancient situations is an easy and deadly trap, and now Molnar is showing that all previous research of the Star is totally wrong. I feel embarrassed for myself and for the historical/astronomical community at not realizing that the Emperor really had no clothing.

Constructively, Molnar next shows what the Star must have been - based on what the *Magi* would have considered as important. As astrologers, they would take the Star to be a horoscope indicating the birth of a very great king in Judea. For the last decade, Molnar's scholarly articles have worked on many points of ancient astrology, where many surviving books tell us exactly what is needed for a regal horoscope and what would point to Judea. Molnar searches over a long range of time to find the one time when all the portents point to a very great king to be born in Judea. And the date fits well with all historical evidence. So I strongly conclude that Molnar has indeed correctly identified the Star of Bethlehem.

The implications of Molnar's discovery are less clear. For example, it does not decide on the divinity of Christ. Nor does it decide on the details of what actually happened. Possibilities range from the traditional Christian story all the way to a Greek convert around AD 70 discovering the omen of Jesus only by back calculation.

Molnar's Star of Bethlehem is a set of around ten items that the horoscope should show. Only one of these items is that the Moon and Jupiter should be in conjunction. This conjunction happens once a month as the Moon goes around the zodiac. Molnar's thesis does not require in any way the existence of a lunar occultation of Jupiter, although the astrological significance would increase with zero separation. It is fully adequate that the Moon pass by Jupiter at any distance, which it certainly did. It is also adequate that the Magi could have gotten the Moon's position accurate to within a few degrees, and this was easily done in ancient times. In *modern* times, there indeed is a roughly one hour uncertainty in the time of the occultation (as was well known to Molnar), but this is totally irrelevant to Molnar's thesis. However, the *existence* of the occultation is certain, as can be confirmed from Tuckerman's tables, Voyager calculations, or the Chapronte-Touze & Chapront integrations.

I have published many scholarly articles in the refereed literature on ancient astronomy in the Middle East (including ephemeris research and biblical chronology) and I have been in touch (at conferences and with HASTRO-L) with many other top level scholars. Most of us have been totally converted to Molnar's thesis. We are kicking ourselves for not having thought of it first. A typical reaction is the world's greatest archaeoastronomer saying "Blindingly obvious, in retrospect".

I found Michael Molnar's investigation into the mystery of the magi's star unqiue in a very important way. Unlike other writers on this topic, his approach involves entering the ancient world by examining the intellectual currents of the time. He does not impose our modern presumptions of how people thought back then on the evidence available, as others have done before him. As the book progresses, we find Molnar introducing the astrology of the times to better illuminate the cryptic and confusing passages of the Magi's star that we all know from the Bible. This, to my knowledge is unique. Most academic researchers steer a wide path around astrology and attempt to make their cases without it. But without a thorough account of the astrologer's point of view, which was at that time a very respectable way of knowledge, and which is clearly what the subject itself is all about, we miss an opportunity to get at the heart of the matter. Michael Molnar does not miss this opportunity. I was impressed with this book because he tackles a controversial subject intelligently, and comes out unscathed with a most compelling argument. If only other ancient historians and historians of science were as honest in their assessment of the astrologically rich perspectives of those times.

Molnar's book claims that The Star of Bethlehem was an occultation of the planet Jupiter by the Moon. An occultation occurs when the Moon or a planet passes in front of a more distant object. Unfortunately there is very considerable doubt that the occultation ever took place. One of Molnar's supporters,who has decided to remain anonymous, has said that it does not matter if the occultation ever took place, a close encounter is good enough. However, such close encounters are very frequent, and they would not have attracted the attention of astrologers. Also an important part of Molnar's book and a central thesis of his theory is that occultations were important to ancient astrologers, so a mere close encounter, called a conjunction will really not do, they occur a few times in every year. The facts of the matter are that we cannot be certain that an occultation took place in 6 BC, we cannot be certain that it took place in the constellation of Aries or that it was visible in the part of the world associated with Christ's birth. A few astronomers and several astrologers in the USA supported the claim made by Molnar. I do believe that they were convinced by his verbal arguments and that they did not check out the astronomical details and mathematical uncertainties involved in using modern computer programs to calculate past events involving the moon. In August 2000 I atttended the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union, in Manchester,UK. One paper presented here was on ancient solar eclipses (an eclipse is an occultation of Sun by Moon), which showed that if one used modern software to calculate past eclipses then the times were always different from the recorded times. This is because of the vagaries in the Earth's rotation rate. Over the past two thousand years the day length has changed, but unfortunately not at a constant rate. Comparing the recorded times with the calculated times does give an averate rate of change, by there are errors inherent in the average, and it is not possible to take into account sudden and unexpected glitches in the spin rate, which have also been detected in the historical records. Molnar's occultation remains a computer simulate event, subject to uncertainty. It is a pity that he did not make the uncertainties clear in his book. The spin rate of Earth gets no mention. I first came across Molnar's work in an article he wrote for the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society (June 1995), where he claimed; "..the second occultation could only have been detected through the mathematics of the astologers." In my book THE BIRTH OF CHRIST (VIRGIN 1998), I comment on this claim, by pointing out that because of the considerable complexity of lunar motion, the astronomy of the Magi-astrologers was not up to the task. I was pleased to see that in his book he chad changed his mind about the mathematical ability of the astrologers of old. He was now saying that they could have predicted the possibility of an occultation. Molnar seems to imply in his book that he is the first person to recognise the fact that THE STAR should be seen in astrological terms. This is not the case; Johann Kepler (1571-1630), a very famous astronomer who practice astrology set us on this path, and in recent years Prof. F K d'Occhieppo, Dr David Hughes and Dr E L Martin have continued along this path. The book is misleading in another respect. It implies that there was concensus among astrologers as to how to interpret horoscopes. No such concensus existed in the ancient world, just as no concensus exists today. Astrology was just beginning to emerge from the older style cosmic belief systems, and Hipparchus (190-120 BC) had only just discovered the phenomenon of precession, which caused the point of the vernal equinox to move out of Aries - The Ram into Pisces - the Fishes, about 100 years before the birth of Christ. Serious astrologers of the time were just beginning to come to terms with this. Molnar chose a very narow thread through this minefield of ancient astrology to produce a set of arguments that supported his thesis of an occultation which cannot be verified mathematically with any degree of certainty.

Michael R. Molnar, a PhD astronomer, convincingly argues that the identity of the star of Bethlehem has to be sought from the astrological perspective that held sway at the time and place of the birth of Jesus. He studied that astrology in depth and conveys it to the readers of his book. Molnar also describes relevant aspects of the ancient cultures of Rome, Judea and the East, so that the reader can follow his reasoning. His investigation deftly combines ancient astrology and history with modern astronomical calculations of planet and star positions 2000 years ago. THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM: THE LEGACY OF THE MAGI concludes that an astrological portent involving Jupiter and the Moon in the zodiacal constellation Aries was the 'star' that lead the Magi to Jesus. The book has a Christian and Western flavor but is respectful of other religions and cultures. The writing style is quite clear and pleasing to read.

Michael Molnar has produced a superbly researched book. Easy to read and informative, yet with enough technical detail to impress any expert; historical or astrological. Personally I was enthralled by his presentation of the astrological data; the horoscope for the day April 17, 6 B.C.; the actual planetary alignments and the meanings conveyed to astrologers of the time. Totally impressive. I myself do not study astrology, but I would immediately recommend this book to anyone who has,or to anyone who has ever wondered about the biblical story as I have. His research is extremely relevant to our cynical modern age, giving confident and entirely convincing answers to a story which for me always raised questions. His objectivity is impressive; one cannot determine from the writings whether or not the author is himself a religious man. Very well laid out, logically presented, a superb read. Two thumbs way up!

For anyone interested in astrology, ancient history, the roman empire, I would highly recommend this book. I couldn't put it down. It would make a great holiday gift as it's about Christmas and a different take on what happened so long ago.

Michael R. Molnar's quest for the Star of Bethlehem provides a reasonable approach towards the identification of the star whose identity has puzzled astronomers since the time of Johannes Kepler. Any student of the subject should add this book along side David Hughes' The Star of Bethlehem, and Ernest Martin's The Star that Astonished the World. Molnar identifies the Star of Bethlehem as the heliacal rising and lunar occultation of the planet Jupiter in the constellation of Aries on April 17, 6 BCE (Before the Common Era) when Herod the Great ruled over Judea. The significance of this event as a royal portent is supported by a very formalized view of Greek astrology that was current around this period. It is unfortunate, however, that the occurence of this event could probably not have been seen with the naked eye. This implies that the Magi must have calculated the stellar position, rather than having "seen his star in the east." On the other hand, the subsequent path of the star where it "went before them (the Magi), till it came and stood over where the young child was" can be correlated to the apparent motion of Jupiter, first in its retrograde motion, and then at a stationary point. So far, Molnar's astronomical outline seems to provide a plausible interpretation of Mathew's nativity, but the story can't end at this point. Molnar feels compelled to continue, and give his view as to why Luke's nativity reports the birth of Jesus as occuring during the time of the Census of 7 CE when Judea had been absorbed into the Syrian province where Quirinius served as governor. This time period is paradoxically about ten years after the death of Herod the Great. Most biblical commentators either try to find another census that fits their particular chronology that overlaps with the reign of Herod the Great, or dismiss Luke's account as being somewhat muddled. Molnar chooses to support the latter viewpoint with a coin minted in Antioch about the time of the 7 CE Census that shows a ram looking backwards in the direction of a star. This particular coin, according to Molnar, signifies the lunar occultation of Jupiter, and could have provided Luke with the necessary inspiration to write his "anachronistic" nativity story. The converse, where Matthew's historical account of the nativity could be unreliable, is never considered, because commentators like Molnar have fixed upon an "orthodox" chronology that preserves a preferred but arbitrary precedence of reliability among the four gospels. In spite of all the skepticism to the contrary, a very reasonable possibility exists that Jesus was born at the time of the Census of 7 CE, and died shortly before the time when Pilate was expelled from Judea in 36 CE. Molnar and others who are searching after the Star of Bethlehem might therefore try to find meaning in the "manger-sign" that was presented to the shepherds by the heavenly host as reported by Luke's nativity instead of relying solely upon the Star of Bethlehem that was sighted by the Magi as reported by Matthew's nativity. That meaning, not surprising at all but largely ignored, might have something to do with a set of significant planetary occurences involving a faint cluster of stars located within the constellation of Cancer, which is known as Praesepe, the manger.

If you seek to understand the worldview of people far removed in time, you have to think like them. Astrology, the sacred science of the first century AD, "exceeded every religion in power and influence" according to Roman historian Michael Grant. Most of the great scientific thinkers of the period were astrologers. Horoscopes were read on street corners for a penny and in palaces for heaps of gold. Emperors like Tiberius, Claudius and Nero didn't make a political move without first consulting their astrologers - the theme of my novel "The Nero Prediction".

Since this was also the century of Christ, there can be no doubt that Christian astrologers would have searched for the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth as further proof of his divinity. They knew he was born towards the end of King Herod's reign but they needed to know the exact day of the nativity. To us this would seem to be an impossible task but not to a first century magus. What seems absurd to us would have seemed obvious to them. Jesus was born at a moment in time when the stars foretold his astounding future. There was no single Star of Bethlehem. The "Star" was a spectacular configuration of planets.

In a fascinating feat of astral detective work, Molnar sets out to find this apocalyptic configuration. The reader is first introduced to the fundamentals of classical astrology. Implementing its lore, he narrows down the birth in the manger to April 17, 6 BC. Of course it is extremely unlikely that this is the actual birthday of the historical Jesus. But Molnar tells us why the heavenly array on this portentous day could have been the origin of the Star of Bethlehem legend.

A profound, groundbreaking work.