Michael Molnar, an astronomer formerly from Rutgers
University in New Jersey, says he?s 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 named Firmicus Maternus.
Molnar believes that the star of Bethlehem was not a
spectacular astronomical event such as a supernova or a
comet but an obscure astrological one that 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 March,
20, 6 BC, and again on April 17, 6 BC. He believed Roman
astrologers would have interpreted such an event as
signifying the birth of a divine king in Judea, but he lacked
proof. Now he?s found it in the Mathesis, a book written by
Maternus in 334 AD, who described an astrological event
involving an eclipse of Jupiter by the Moon in Aries, and said
it signified the birth of a divine king.
?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.?
Why didn?t Maternus mention Jesus by name? According to
Molnar, early Christians hated pagan beliefs and did not want
to justify the Biblical story with what they considered to be
astrological superstitions. They felt that the idea that the
stars govern our fate contradicted 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 become mired down in a debate about celestial
influences. So they buried the knowledge of the star?s
astrological origins and in time it was forgotten.
?I take Molnar?s work quite seriously,? says Owen Gingerich,
an historian of astronomy at Harvard University. ?Anything he
comes up with along these lines has to be considered as
being very likely correct.?
For more information, click here.
