Early Christians Hid The Origins Of The Bethlehem Star

New Scientist ^ | 12-21-2001 | Marcus Chown

[blam]

Early Christians hid the origins of the Bethlehem star

13:15 21 December 01
Marcus Chown

A US astronomer claims he has found the first mention of the star of Bethlehem outside the Bible. The reference is in a 4th-century manuscript written by a Roman astrologer and Christian convert called Firmicus Maternus.

Photo: Bridgeman Art Library

Michael Molnar, formerly of Rutgers University in New Jersey, is the originator of the idea that the star of Bethlehem was not a spectacular astronomical event such as a supernova or a comet but an obscure astrological one.

The event would nevertheless have been of great significance to ancient Roman astrologers. After studying the symbolism on Roman coins, he concluded that the "star" was in fact a double eclipse of Jupiter in a rare astrological conjunction that occurred in Aries on 20 March, 6 BC, and again on 17 April, 6 BC (New Scientist magazine, 23 December 1995).

Molnar believed that Roman astrologers would have interpreted such an event as signifying the birth of a divine king in Judea. But he lacked proof. Now he says he has found it, in the Mathesis, a book written by Maternus in AD 334. Maternus described an astrological event involving an eclipse of Jupiter by the Moon in Aries, and said that it signified the birth of a divine king.

No names

"Maternus did not mention Jesus's name," says Molnar. "But Roman astrology was a popular craze at the time and everyone reading the book would have known the reference was to Jesus and that the astrological event was the star of Bethlehem."

So why did Maternus not mention Jesus by name? According to Molnar, early Christians hated pagan beliefs and did not want to justify the Biblical story with astrological mumbo-jumbo. The idea that the stars govern our fate flew in the face of belief in a Christian God as the controlling force in the Universe.

"Being a pagan who had converted to Christianity during his lifetime, Firmicus was torn," says Molnar. "Hence his use of astrology to support the Christian story, but in a veiled way."

According to Molnar, it was essential to early Christians that the true nature of the star be hidden, otherwise theologians would be mired in debate about celestial influences that were not part of Christianity. So they buried the knowledge of the star's astrological roots and in time it was forgotten.

"I take Molnar's work quite seriously," says Owen Gingerich, a historian of astronomy at Harvard University. "Anything he comes up with along these lines has to be considered as being very likely correct."

13:15 21 December 01

[aruanan]

Early Christians hid the origins of the Bethlehem star

I wonder if anyone has tried to teach Chown and Molnar how to reason. After succeeding in this and after getting them some basic education in religious history, they may be able to see what an absurd title this is. The fact is that the "wise men" from the "East" following the "star" (at least two years after the birth) has always been taken to be something intimately related to astrology, the actual celestial phenomenon notwithstanding. This goes back to within the lifetime of contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about it. You can't get Christians any earlier than that.

[billbears]

"I take Molnar's work quite seriously," says Owen Gingerich, a historian of astronomy at Harvard University. "Anything he comes up with along these lines has to be considered as being very likely correct."

Really!! I mean goodness forbid that the Creator of the universe just put a star there to announce the birth of His Son into the world. Everyone knows that God has to fit into our little box of understanding else he isn't really God, now is he? < /sarcasm>

[abandon]

I've heard on and off that one theory is that the Star was a triple conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces in or around 4 B.C.

[TheCPA]

The Bible uses the word "star" as a symbol for an angel. Therefore, the star that appeared near the birth of Christ might well have been an angel.

[abandon]

Could be, but how would the Magi see that from so far away?

[David]

I agree with the tone of all three of you--God certainly had the power to provide any kind of celestial help He thought appropriate to guide the wise men. And I also see the clearest way to reconcile the birth naratives as assuming that the wise men showed up a year or so after the birth.

On the other hand, what is interesting about this story is that in my view, the actual birth date was in May of 6 BC.

[blackbag]

Merry Christmas

[Rodney King]

Molnar believed that Roman astrologers would have interpreted such an event as signifying the birth of a divine king in Judea.

This statement is kind of silly. I mean, a bunch of guys in Rome who don't really think that Judea is any more or less important than any other conquered land see an obscure atrological event and think "Oh, this must mean the birth of a kind in Judea". Hardly.

[Notwithstanding]

Science ALWAYS points to the Creator! God's truth exists for all things and all people. Everything in the universe is subject to this truth. Science will never disprove the exisitence of its Creator - the great uncaused cause, the prime mover, the intelligent designer, the only One who has made something out of nothing.

Atheism makes no rational sense. Science can never prove it - nor even hint at it. Whereas the more we learn about our universe from science the more rational the notion of God becomes. Universes do not just happen.

[AppyPappy]

The Magi were star-readers. Remember they had to ask where the baby would be born. It wasn't a spotlight. They simply recognized a sign and followed it in its direction.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east[or "when it rose"] and have come to worship him."

[billbears]

Oh, I agree about the date. I understand the reason for having it at this time of year and the history behind that, but I always thought it was around 3 or 4 BC, so it is interesting to think it might have happened even a few years earlier

[woollyone]

A careful reading of Scripture leads one to conclude that the star actually moved about in the sky.

[Wm Bach]

Universes do not just happen.

"Awwww, Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens to you" - Homer Simpson, philosopher

[Aquinasfan]

Why would "roman astrologers" come from "the east"?

I saw a special the other night that had a more plausible story, and which I've heard before.

In the year 7 B.C., Jupiter, Saturn and Mars aligned against a background constellation that was considered to be Israel. Jupiter represented a king, Saturn a son. I forget what Mars represented. Anyway, the "magi" or astrologers understood this to mean that a son was to be born to a king in the nation of Israel. In other words, a new king was to be born in Israel.

So the magi headed west to the capital of Israel and asked where the new king was to be born. The Jews explain that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. The symbolism is very interesting considering that non-Jews (gentiles) recognize the King of Israel while the Jews (or at least a lot of them) do not.

[abandon]

A careful reading of Scripture leads one to conclude that the star actually moved about in the sky.

As planets "move" before the "fixed" stars?

[SpikeG]

Hmmm... Sounds like they were close but got it backwards. In the mythology of the planets Jupiter represents the son who is born to a father who intends to kill him at birth because prophecy states that said son will cause the downfall of the father. The Mother hides the infant at birth. The son matures in hiding and emerges to fullfill the prophecy. In this conjunction Mars represents war and aggression between the father and son. Since Saturn represents an old king and an establishment. The conjunction would would most likely affect the nation where the culmination of the conjunction occurred by manifesting the mythology of the archetypes involved,(hence the wise men knowing where the baby king would be born and the circumstances of the fated childs birth.) It is a well known fact among theologians that Christ's celebrated bithdate was chosen by the church to superimpose on the pagan midwinter holidays to assist in converting said pagans to christianity and to bring conquered nations under Roman control. If you can control a people's religion ....you can control a people.

[backup]

I mean, a bunch of guys in Rome who don't really think that Judea is any more or less important than any other conquered land see an obscure atrological event and think "Oh, this must mean the birth of a kind in Judea". Hardly.

That's not quite correct. The ancient astrologers had divided the sky into different regions -- each symbolizing a particualr nation or race. It's all very complicated. And, I can't remember all the details. But, suffice to say I too had the same objection you raised until I learned a bit more about Astrology at the time of the Romans.

[Channel_Islands_EANx_Diver]

Good points. There is, as well, far more evidence that Jesus was the fabrication of the Romans in order to consolidate the varied religions of conquered states.

All these Biblical stories have counterparts in religious myths going all the way back to the Assyrians and Caananites.

[Bommer]

The Bible uses the word "star" as a symbol for an angel. Therefore, the star that appeared near the birth of Christ might well have been an angel.

Did these stars all appear singing "Glory to God in the Highest and on earth, peace and goodwill to all mankind?"