The famous sermon by Marsilio Ficino for Christmas 1482, where Ficino explains about the magi star

http://heavenastrolabe.net/the-star-of-magi/

margherita

A comet is a problem due to the time and distance issue. They see the comet, saddle up and by the time they get to Bethlehem the Holy Family is long gone.

Good point. I suppose it depends how far the Magi had to travel doesn't it? Mesopotamia is considerably less far than eastern Persia.

The argument of Molnar that you have cited ie it had to be an astrological rather than an astronomical phenomena is certainly a serious contender. The point being why are there no contemporary accounts of this astronomical phenomena in the literature of the time?

Actually there are. However, they come from Chinese cometary records rather than those of Greece or Rome. It is well known that Chinese records were far more methodical and less erratic than Greek and Roman records of comets.

We do have a promising candidate from the Chinese comet records. This relates to a comet dated from 5BCE. The astronomical chapter of the Han Shu is the oldest of the Chinese texts reporting this object. It says a ?broom star? was seen sometime during the months of March to May in 5 BCE. It appeared at the Chinese asterism of Chhien?Niu (approximating the constellation of Capricornus) for 70 days. The date and location indicate the object was a morning star. Colin Humphreys has suggested this makes the likeliest dates for the birth of Jesus as between March 9th and May 4th , 5 BCE.

The timing of the comet?s appearance in the Chinese records fits to the springtime scene described in the Bible. For example, St Luke 2:8 tells of the birth of Jesus and noted ?there were in the same country shepherds in the field keeping watch over their flock.? Most researchers would acknowledge shepherds only stayed in the field with their flock during the spring. In the account in the Gospel of Mathew we also note than when the Magi came to Jerusalem they told King Herod they sought the King of the Jews ?for we have seen a star in the east?.

Note the word ?seen? . This word suggests not just an astrological consideration but also something quite literal. I am sure it had distinct astrological significance for the Magi too. This would be fundamentally different from how it might be understood in the Roman world. To the Greeks and Romans comets were exclusively malefic in portent and usually implied the death of kings. Probably not an omen King Herod would have welcomed or encouraged astrological speculation on. He was faced with a delineation suggesting his death and/or a new King to replace him!

Michael Molnar uses the Greek and Roman astrological literature to suggest that this effectively rules out the Magi following a comet. However, the big problem with Molnar?s theory is that all his sources are Greek , Roman or Egyptian. He has tried to dismiss evidence that the comet lore in Parthia could have been different. However, as I cited with Mithradates's comet the evidence is there.

With the comet occurring in the sign of Capricorn it seems plausible that the Magi associated this constellation with the land of the Jews due to its rulership by the planet Saturn. Astrologers have long linked the Jewish people to the planet Saturn with the Jewish Sabbath occuring on a Saturday.

However, to really understand what might have motivated the Magi we need to look at beliefs within the Parthian Empire not in the contemporary astrology of Greece or Rome. This is a serious flaw in Molnar's theory as far as I am concerned.

There is evidence of a long standing prophetic tradition stemming from ancient Persia that would give a comet the astrological association of a new king being bornin the east.

The most famous apocalyptic revelation was an ancient Persian prophecy known as The Oracle of Hystaspes, who was legendary Persian-Babylonian sage. The oracle foretold the destruction of Rome by fire and sword and coming of a saviour-king from the East, whose birth would be proclaimed by a brilliant light from heaven. Another prophecy with which the Magi are likely to have been familiar with is the Zorasteran apocalyptic scripture of the 3rd century BCE known as the Bahman Yasht. This described an avenging saviour-Prince who would be born under a shooting star. This prince would drive the tyrants out of Asia.
The comet didn't have to be especially bright or magnificent to fulfill this prophecy. What was important was its location in the constellation of Capricorn which would be associated with the land of the Jews.

Its useful to keep in mind the political context of the time Jesus was born into. Palestine was very much a state on the buffer zone between the two rival superpowers of the age: Rome and Parthia. Even Roman writers acknowledged the Parthian Empire was its military equal and deserved a degree of grudging respect. . The borders between the two empires constantly shifted back and forth.

The Parthian empire had frequently defeated Roman armies in many wars. Parthia was therefore the only empire that Rome actually feared. Just decades before the birth of Christ, its armies had driven the Romans completely out of Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor. While the Romans had subsequently, recovered these territories there is no doubt that from a Parthian perspective these territories were within their sphere of influence.

From an eastern, Parthian perspective therefore the birth of a new King in Judea could therefore have been symbolized in the appearance of a comet in the constellation of Caprricorn since this fulfilled their indigenous prophecies that a King of the east would drive out the oppressors from the west. For the Magi , Parthians and many other eastern peoples there is little doubt that the oppressors were perceived to be the Romans.

Mark

Hello

BTW, the lore surrounding Jesus stresses his role as a solar and agricultural divinity, similar to Tammuz/Dimmuzi, Bacchus/Dionysos, Ceres/Demeter, Prosperpina/Persephone, and many others.

I suppose you got this from "Zeitgeist"&co. You might want to check "Zeitgeist refuted" where all this seemingly well-established and astute observations are turned into a pile of sorrowful, awfully non-scientific rubbish. Each and every one of them. It actually turns out that the author(s) of "Zeitgeist" was either:
a) a stupid, uneducated amateur
or,
b) a stupid, uneducated amateur who thought everybody else was even more stupid/uneducated than him(worst case scenario); I tend to stick with this definition

For the sake of objectivity, one should be willing to hear both sides of the story.

Regards,
Goran

Tom wrote:I don't see why the author of Mathew (Mathew from this point on) needed astrological knowledge. He reported either what he saw or heard. We're the ones deducing what Matthew wrote - trying to make a case for a more or less literal translation. I think it might be a stronger argument to say that Matthew understood what his readers understood and that his choice of words was aimed at them not us. They only need to know that men from another culture came to worship the Child. Over 2000 years later his words don't literally mean the same thing to his contemporaries as they do to us. That is the miracle of Scripture. It has meaning all these years after it was written....

...This is the purpose of the story of the Magi. It symbolizes the universal divinity of Christ. They came to Christ. They left changed for the experience. He came for all men, not just the Jews. The Magi would tell what they saw. His influence would transcend Judea. He would change the world.

The nativity is almost the mirror image of the story of the creation of man and the fall. Man is created directly by the hand of God. God comes to earth the usual way. Man is given Paradise. God is born in the most humble of circumstances. Satan comes to tempt man away from God - to change him (and her). The Magi are changed from the material (gold frankincense and myrrh) to the spiritual as they go home by a different route.

There is a lot more here than astrology.

Hey, Tom--if you are a Christian, notably one who reads the Bible literally as well as through the more esoteric metaphors of a particular denomination's teachings, then we will simply have to acknowledge our differences. I truly respect such religious views, even though I do not share them. And I sincerely wish you a joyful commemoration of the birth of your saviour. To me, this view of Christmas is far more praiseworthy than the materialism of secular Christmas in North America.

For me, as a kind of deist, there are some logical issues at the heart of a debate about supporting an astronomical explanation of a Star of Bethlehem-- that may not have existed in a literal scientific sense, but rather in a metaphorical or esoteric sense. If we consider the Star to be in the latter category, then to me personally, Matthew 2:1-12 actually becomes a lot more powerful as an allegory for the seekers' quest for divinity or the true God, contra the fear, jealousy, and violence symbolized by Herod.

Margherita--this is what was so beautiful about the passage by Ficino that you linked. We can see how he was concerned to blend information about the actual heavens with a more spiritual and supernatural reading of the magi story.

Mark, you might enjoy the Malouf article I cited in my previous post. You might have to get to a university library to read it however. But basically one could come up with estimates of travel times from the plausible origin points of the magi to Bethlehem, because the main routes were well known from ancient historical and archaeological sources. Of course the travel distance would vary depending upon whether the magi (if they actually existed) came from Saudi Arabia (as Malouf argues) or Medea (as per traditional beliefs.)

Yet another interpretation of Matthew 2:1-12 is that the magi themselves were fixed stars, whose rotation in the heavens definitately could be traced from east to west. I realize that some members of this forum have criticized Allen's Star Names, but he does list a European tradition that the 3 stars of Orion's belt were called "the three kings" or magi. This might be a post-biblical re-naming; but the huge significance of the constellation Orion and its particular stars in ancient times cannot be overlooked. Many cultures asociated Orion with a god/dess or supernatural beings. This was especially the case in the Levant. Changing "pagan" star affiliations to Christian ones would have been a logical transposition.

I hope people will also take a look at the asterism Praesepe in Cancer, called "the beehive" or "the manger". This asterism appears in Ptolemy, so it might well have been current around the time of birth of Jesus. As the Virgin rises on her side, then Praesepe would be at the zenith.

Note, also, Virgo's stars Vindemiatrx (harbiner of the grape harvest) and Spica (the stalk of grain--"corn" to the British.) The teaching that a virgin gives birth to a deity whose body is bread (made from grain) and blood is wine (made from grapes) in the Eucharist cannot be overlooked.

cor scorpii wrote:Hello

BTW, the lore surrounding Jesus stresses his role as a solar and agricultural divinity, similar to Tammuz/Dimmuzi, Bacchus/Dionysos, Ceres/Demeter, Prosperpina/Persephone, and many others.

I suppose you got this from "Zeitgeist"&co. You might want to check "Zeitgeist refuted" where all this seemingly well-established and astute observations are turned into a pile of sorrowful, awfully non-scientific rubbish. Each and every one of them. It actually turns out that the author(s) of "Zeitgeist" was either:
a) a stupid, uneducated amateur
or,
b) a stupid, uneducated amateur who thought everybody else was even more stupid/uneducated than him(worst case scenario); I tend to stick with this definition

For the sake of objectivity, one should be willing to hear both sides of the story.

Regards,
Goran

No, actually this is not where I got this information from.

I've done a fair bit of reading in religious studies scholarship. There's always more to do, however. But here's the thing. Precisely what makes the biblical narratives endure throughout the ages (as well as other scriptures that adherants believed for centuries/millennia) is that they can be read on multiple levels. And these "levels" change over time.

The existence of narratives about supernatural beings that pre-dated the NT yet parallel it so closely cannot be overlooked. At least, the early church fathers didn't think so. They were so concerned to refute these known older religious narratives that some claimed they were scripted by the Devil to temp and confuse the faithful! Contemporary pagan critics of Christianity also pointed out these pre-existing pagan narratives of other gods who died and were reborn.

But hey. Believe what you wish to believe.

waybread wrote:
Margherita--this is what was so beautiful about the passage by Ficino that you linked. We can see how he was concerned to blend information about the actual heavens with a more spiritual and supernatural reading of the magi story.

Exactly my thought
margherita

Steven wrote:

Four months later in August, Jupiter and Saturn would have risen about sunset, opposite the sun. This very well could be why the Bethlehem Star is stated as being seen "at its rising:
Quote:
"We saw his star in the east [when it rose/at it's rising] and have come to worship him." (Matt. 2:2)

"At it's rising" is an astronomical term called acronycal rising, that means a star was either directly opposite the setting sun and rising on the eastern horizon (the ascendant degree) shortly after sunset or setting after sunrise on the eastern horizon (on the descendant). In September/October 7BC during their second conjunction it would have been rising right after sunset on the eastern horizon and been visible most of the night.

Hello Steven,

I dont think the part of the Gospel of Mathew 2:2 you have translated as implying acronycal rising is quite as emphatic as you suggest. I am only mentioning this as its an issue Courtney Roberts spends quite a bit of time discussing in her book The Star of The Magi. She quotes extended communication with both Robert Schmidt and Dorian Greenbaum on this specific point. The key Greek term used in the Gospel of Mathew are the words en te anatole which could be translated as heliacal rising, acronycal rising or something different. The discussion of this specific topic in the book runs to four pages and I dont wish to infinge the author's copyright. However, I will state that Robert Schmidt takes the view this Greek term is not normal terminology for either kind of rising. He goes as far as saying it is incorrect to suggest the term means aconycal rising as suggested by some astronomical writers. Dorian Greenbaum agrees the language is not normal for either type of rising. However, she states

When the magi say that the they see a star en te antole, it means that they see a star ahead of the sun at dawn or setting after the sun at sunset ...Anatole can mean heliacal rising, but it can also mean just rising ahead of the sun, far enough to be visible.

(Dorian Greenbaum, quoted in The Star of the Magi, by Courtney Roberts,p 121, 2007)

Mark

If, say, Jupiter/saturn were the conjoined stars, then their apparent retrograde motion during much of 7BC would have made "the star" go before anyone travelling to Israel from the East to the west simply because it would have been rising and its apparent motion from east to west.

By retrograde motion it would have been moving west to east in zodiac not by diurnal motion, where it would still move east to west. At less than a degree per day in zodiac, I don't see how they could have followed it at all.

My take on this ...

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5913

according to Pingree who dismisses persian astrology saying the only thing contributed by the persians was the discovery of the Ju/Sa synod

so the Magi (persian astrologer) were following "their" star ...

clear to me

especially since the prophet Daniel taught the magi babylonian astrology and was appointed head magus by cyrus ... Daniel predicted christ in the 70 weeks of astrology (day for a year = 490 years -- a neptune/pluto cycle and also right there with Jesus ... the magi were in bethlehem following their star and checking up on Daniel's prediction

A quick question if I may. A while back it was stated that the four gospels are the only written evidence of a historical Jesus. How many sources are there that prove the existence of anyone else in the classical world? I seem to remember something about Suetonius and one other being the only written eveidence for the Caesars.

I hope the reason for this question is clear.

On a lighter note I have now learnt why the goods news was told to the humble shepherds. Left to the so-called wise men the baby Jesus was lucky to escape alive. That, ladies is why men never ask directions even when hopelessly lost.

Matthew

That is Matthew the skyscript member, not Matthew the gospel writer so please do not blame me for any terminological inexactitudes about the star.