The Star of Bethlehem : The Legacy of the Magi

Rating:
Summary: The Magi Versus the Shepherds
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: An Astronomer Looks for The Star of Bethlehem
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Another theorist on the Star of Bethlehem fails miserably
Review: The first principle concerning the whats and wherefores concerning the Star of Bethlehem is the New Testament account concerning the Nativity Story. Why else would anyone write a book on the Star of Bethlehem if the New Testament is not going to be used to substanciate his theory. But Professor Michael Molnar does exactly the opposite of what common sense dictates. He does not need the New Testament to dictate terms to him. He is the expert and he is going to prove the New Testament wrong.

Traditionally John the Baptist is born on June 24th: for now let us forget what BC year it was it. To disprove the tradional dates of Jesus Christ one would have to demonstrate that John the Baptist was born six months from whatever date is chosen. A theorist can not just pick and choose his data. To disprove December 25th as the date for Christ's birth June 24th will have to be disproved for the date John the Baptist was born.

The New Testament tells us that Elisabeth, John the Baptist's mother, was pregnant six months before the Enunciation to Mary: the day she conceived Christ. Half a year from June 24th is December 25th. Professor Molnar tells us that Jesus was born on April 17th. That date is not six months from June 24th. No theorist can have his cake and eat it. All the date concerning the Nativity Story has to be accounted for.

Professor Molnar goes off on a tangent concerning what coins means that were minted, admittedly, years after the fact. These coins are a sleigh of hand maneuver to get the reader thinking in one area taking his mind off of the Nativity Story.

Then we have of course Professor Molnar not knowing the year and date that Julius Caesar introduced the calendar year. He dates it at January 1st 45 BC. WRONG! Professor Molnar get out your pencil and paper and write this down: January 1st 46 BC was the date Julius Caesar introduce the calendar year to the Roman world: 38-years later a major changes were made in six out of the 12 months: that was Juanuary 1st 8 BC. 38-years is one complete lunar cycle. Professor Molnar look up Keith Gordon Irwing's work "365 Days" and get your facts straight before putting out another failed publication attempting to pinpoint the date of the Star of Bethlehem.

Rating:
Summary: Surprising and worthwhile!
Review: 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).