Astrology of Christmas: The Star of Bethlehem
December 13th, 2006 at 4:00 pm (Miscellaneous Astrology)
Around Christmas, there is often some discussion about the nature of the Star of Bethlehem, which led the Three Magi to the infant Jesus. Most writers come to the conclusion that the “Star” must have really been a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn (thanks, Kepler!), which occurred in the assumed year of Jesus’s birth. I believe that this is an incorrect conclusion, for a couple of reasons.
One, there are many documents extant today showing that the people of 2000 years ago knew their planets, and that they knew them better by sight than many people today. I find it difficult to believe that the ancients could not distinguish the conjunction of two familiar planets (Jupiter and Saturn) from a single star. We tend to look at the old stargazers as though they had trouble keeping the very basics straight, but let us not forget that these people could calculate a horoscope from scratch blindfolded (figuratively speaking) and were extremely familiar with the heavens through routine observation.
Two, just by sheer logic, it is easy to see that a unique event such as the birth of Christ could not have been shown by a recurring event, such as the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. If an event is highly unique, the same should apply to the astronomical configuration mirroring it. We do not get a new Christ every 20 years when Jupiter and Saturn conjoin, or when Jupiter passes through Aries, or conjoins Regulus every 12 years, or whatever.
Part of the problem in determining the nature of the Star of Bethlehem is that we are not sure of the year in which Jesus was born. Presumably, it would have been no later than 4 B.C., when King Herod died, but even so, Jewish records of observed astronomical events around that time are kind of fuzzy. My best guess is that the astronomical event (to the extent it was astronomical, and not a religious vision visible only to a few) would have been unique, like a comet that made a special appearance. Chinese astronomers are supposed to have seen a comet hovering in the heavens for weeks on end in 5 B.C., which would support this theory.
There are a great number of theories about the nature of the Star of Bethlehem, some more plausible than others. The ones put forth by astronomers tend to be most convincing to me (except when they start theorizing about astrology). I would love to hear your own thoughts on this.
—And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. (Genesis 1:14)
Other Related Posts:
Gary Calderone said,
December 14th, 2006 at 8:36 am
There is an excellent book out on this by Michael Molnar. He is an astronomer, but speaks at astrological organizations as well. I heard him speak at the Astrological Society of Princeton last year. His book is on amazon.com and here is a cut and paste of what it says there:
From Booklist
Christian scholars have expended considerable ingenuity in providing scientific glosses for the scriptural account of the Star that shone above Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth. Astronomer Molnar disputes such explanations precisely because they derive from a modern perspective far removed from the outlook of ancient stargazers, who eagerly scanned the heavens for signs of the Messiah’s birth. Ancient texts show conclusively that no portent would have excited greater expectations of a divine birth in Judea than a lunar occultation of Jupiter in the constellation Aries. And because sophisticated computer calculations reveal that such an eclipse did occur on April seventeenth in the year 6 B.C., Molnar fixes this as the celestial event that signaled the Christ child’s birth. This assertion does require pushing Christ’s birth back two years earlier than the commonly accepted 4 B.C. But evidence gleaned from early Roman and Jewish sources makes an earlier Nativity plausible. The uncanny fit of all the ancient and modern pieces of this puzzle makes for a highly persuasive argument. Bryce Christensen
Owen Gingerich, Harward-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
“Molnar’s The Star of Bethlehem is a fascinating contribution to the immense literature that attempts to come to terms with the Christmas Star represented in Matthew’s Gospel. In my opinion, this book is the most original and important contribution of the entire twentieth century on the thorny question of how events recorded there, should be interpreted.”
Sharon Douglas said,
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
See http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/pageone.htg/pageone.htm for a very interesting discussion setting the time of birth for 2 March 5 B.C. The Star of David is made by planets that statistically can only come together in this formation once every 40 000 000 years. Makes for fascintaing reading.
Cameron Falukner said,
January 29th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Any celestial event that is ‘interpreted’ to mean a ‘birth’ (eg. Star of Bethlehem) is by its very nature ‘astrological’. Astronony is ‘observation’ and astrology is ‘interpretation’.
One must remember that astrology was a principal science at the time of the birth of Christ.
Astrology started getting ‘dissed’ after the invention of the telescope revealed (to the Western world) that the Earth was not the center of the solar system as it was thought to be at earlier times.
Much of the dialogue of The New Testament is, in fact, a deeply veiled astrological/astronomical allegory.
See, http://www.templeofsolomon.org
gryphonastrology said,
January 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Hi Cameron,
I am not exactly sure what points you are making regarding the above post, but let me address a couple of issues in your post:
1. The heliocentric model was proposed as long as 3000 years ago in Indian Vedic texts, complete with accurate calculations of the relative sizes of the Earth and Sun. Heliocentrism was not “revealed” upon the invention of the telescope.
2. Astrology did not start getting “dissed” after the invention of the telescope. It had been disputed and maligned for a lot longer than that. Its general decline occurred around the Enlightenment, and is not tied to one particular event or invention.
3. To say that the New Testament is allegorical is deeply offensive to those who accept it as fact. Enough said.
Warmly,
Nina
Kenneth said,
August 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Dear Nina,
I believe the Star of Bethlehem is a historical fiction and was “invented” after the fact to bolster Jesus’ credibility in a world that was dominated by Stoicism and the notion that the stars illustrated one’s Fate. So certainly the birth of a Savior would warrant a special star. I believe this story was manufactured to “sell” Jesus in a world that was very much dominated by astrology.
Isn’t it weird that the “star” story only appears in the Gospel of Matthew? You would think the angels in Luke would mention something about the Star to the shepherds. They don’t. And John, arguably the most “spiritual” Gospel, makes no mention of the star.
I am working on a scholarly article on this subject, but thought I would mention the basics here in light of your thread.
Sincerely,
Kenneth
gryphonastrology said,
August 28th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Hi Kenneth,
Thank you for visiting. Interesting theory; perhaps not one to which I subscribe, but then, none of us were there when it happened (or didn’t happen)! Of course, the fact that only the Gospel of Matthew mentions the star could indicate a revisionist attempt by the other Gospel writers to take astrology out of the picture.
Please let me know when your article comes out - I’ll be happy to link to it from my homepage.
Nina