After the Supernova of 1604, Kepler published his theories on the date of Christ's birth, which he masked as a contribution to the international discussion (Baronius, Scalinger, et al.) of Biblical Chronology. He notes that he only expressed his views after a Jesuit had written a book about the four-year error in the Christian calendar. This enabled Kepler, who could have been persecuted, to hint cautiously that the Star of Bethlehem may have been a natural phenomenon that science has overlooked. If our interpretation is valid, Kepler's theory of a "cometary star" could surpass the discoveries that established his lasting fame. A good reason to give it some serious thought!
Let's start with the established facts: Isaac Newton wrote more works on religion than about his scientific discoveries, which is typical for the zeitgeist of the 17th century. An interest in Kepler's religious studies was revived in December, 1936, when Washington's Science News ran the seasonal item: "Was Star Of Bethlehem Three Bright Planets?" It went on to explain: “Modern astronomers suggest that it may have been the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars grouped closely together in a little triangle. Such a grouping, astronomers calculate, occurred about Feb. 25, in the year 6 BC.” Several planetariums are listed, which project the ancient sky of Judea “where the three bright planets are thus shown in a miraculously bright triangle”. (1)
These claims were attacked by the astronomer M.W. Burke-Gaffney S.J. at a Jesuit Seminary in Toronto, Canada. He got the attention he wanted, and his paper was published by the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada in 1937 (2). The focus is on Kepler, although he is not mentioned in the article, because he was the first to connect a "triangle" to the Star of Bethlehem. How the Jesuit quotes Kepler's astrological views is also a preview of his agenda:
The astrologers of old observed that Jupiter was in conjunction with Saturn about every twenty years. They calculated that this conjunction took place in the same part of the sky every 800 years. In December 1603 there was to be a conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn in Sagittarius, which, to astrologers was one of the points of the Fiery Trigon. In the autumn of 1604, when Jupiter and Saturn were still in the Fiery Trigon, and not far apart, Mars was to come, and be in conjunction with Saturn on September 26, and with Jupiter on Oct. 9. Thus in early October 1604 Mars, Jupiter and Saturn would be at the vertices of a triangle, - forming a fiery triangle in the Fiery Trigon. A conjunction in the Fiery Trigon presaged great things; a fiery triangle there was surpassed, as an omen, only by a comet.
Although ancient superstitions held that "a fiery triangle in the Fiery Trigon presaged great things", Burke-Gaffney decided to publish the diagram below, which ignores the fiery triangle. It features the Nova, as it could be seen near the three planets on October, 17, 1604 (left diagram below), where we see another triangle, formed by Saturn, Jupiter, and the Nova on top. This may be a subtle trick to fool us, because the Jesuit uses a date that's about 10 days after the Nova was discovered. Did he try to confuse us with Gregorian calendar, which adds 10 days to the Julian, although all calculations are based on the latter? Why else would he pick October 17? Or was it because the Nova tops a fiery triangle with Saturn and Jupiter on that date? This would have been a smart idea, because it would have distracted his seminarian with the Nova!
|
|
|
However, if we trace the planetary positions back (to the right) and add them to his diagram, we see that Kepler is right: The fiery triangle formed shortly before September 26, when Mars "was to come, and be in conjunction with Saturn". But we also see that a little later, before Mars could reach Jupiter, a second triangle of watery symbolism formed as well. Why is it not mentioned? Saturn moves slowly, Jupiter a bit faster, while Mars is lowest and fastest, moving from the far right to the far left, to reach Burke-Gaffney's confusing line-up with the Nova. However, this chart and the two triangles are only accessible for astronomers -- and astrologers. Laypersons do not comprehend the planetary movements along the ecliptic that is at an angle in the sky. An amateur would have no reason to tilt the head to the left -- and would only see one triangle. It's like a parlor trick! The mathematicians among you should note that Sagittarius covers 0-30 degrees, which is 240-270 on Tuckerman's tables:
By omitting the triangles, the Jesuit gives us another glimpse of his agenda. He seems to feature the Nova to misguide his students, to make them believe that Kepler confused the Christmas Star with a Nova. He goes on to quote a text, which he labels "typically Keplerian, born of erudition wedded to astrology by misguided genius” (3), because eight years after "De Stella Nova", and after he had discovered the true orbits of the planets, Kepler writes something in "De Vero Anno" that is in total contradiction of astronomy and rather relates to the "Oracles of Balaam" in the Old Testament:
This star was not of the ordinary run of comets or new stars, but by a special miracle moved in the lower layer of the atmosphere... The Magi were of Chaldea, where astrology was born, of which this is a dictum: Great conjunctions of planets in cardinal points, especially in the equinoctial points of Aries and Libra, signify a universal change of affairs; and a cometary star appearing at the same time tells of the rise of a king...
Next, the Jesuit implies that Kepler’s peers ignored the ridiculous reference to a "cometary star" that moved miraculously in the "lower layer of the atmosphere" and focused instead on the conjunctions. He cites two eminent professors, Ludwig Ideler of Berlin and Charles Pritchard of Oxford, who had spent much time with the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, as if they didn't realize that Kepler featured always the "great conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars". The Jesuit uses the following rhetoric to make this point:
Pritchard does not even consider the approach of Mars to Jupiter and Saturn in February of March BC 6, since neither Ideler nor Kepler had suggested that these three planets could be mistaken for a single star, for in Ideler's words: `at about this time Jupiter and Saturn lost themselves in the rays of the evening sun...
By dismissing casually that "the three planets could be mistaken for a single star", which is an important esoteric element of Kepler's discovery, he explains that in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, the Greek aster defines a singular star, not a triangle of planets. Burke-Gaffney then calculates from Pritchard's planetary positions that the sun would be within 24 degrees of Saturn on February 12, BCE. This little error, the sun was actually over 30 degrees away, and Ideler's vague reference "at about this time" is all he needed to eliminate the miraculously bright triangle:
This means that from about the middle of February, Saturn and Mars would be too close to the sun to be seen by the naked eye. Hence the statement that Mars, Jupiter and Saturn formed a triangle in the sky about Feb.25, BC. 6 (Science News Letter, Dec.19, 1936, p.393) is misleading, inasmuch as the triangle could not be seen.
End of story, it would seem. Especially because planetariums discontinued their miraculous triangle shows. If the triangles were that close to the setting sun, they were invisible and meaningless. The Magi where wise men, not fools! Conspiracy theorists might even consider that the Vatican was so grateful to the good father for eliminating the "superstitious beliefs" of a confused Lutheran astronomer that it donated the funds for an observatory in his name -- anonymously, of course (4).
However, it's easy for us today to expose the Jesuit's intentions. Thanks to the astronomers Robert Victor (Abrams Planetarium, East Lansing, Michigan), and John Mosley (Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles), we have proof of the contrary: Victor saw the Mars-Saturn conjunction of February 20, 1966, clearly with the naked eye, although the planets were even closer to the sun than in 6 BCE., and were observed from a higher latitude than the Near East. Mosley, who personally introduced your gatekeeper to this controversy in the early 1980's, checked the calculations and writes that the triangle of 6 BCE was clearly visible (5). (It must be said that we owe much to Mosley's kind help and tolerance, because is an ardent follower of the Jupiter-Venus conjunction in 1 BCE of Ernest Martin, who was a minister of the Worldwide Church of God. His Christian followers believe that either Herod lived longer, or that Jesus was much older when the wise men arrived.)
Another "error" of Burke-Gaffney, also purely rhetorical, is his statement that Kepler wrote about the star of Bethlehem to compare it with his Nova of 1604, because he allegedly believed that a nova appeared in 6 BC as well, as if both were "cometary stars in the atmosphere". It seems that Burke-Gaffney achieved his goals, because many scholars keep quoting Kepler’s alleged mistake, including John Mosley. David Hughes, who wrote "The Star of Bethlehem, An Astronomer's Confirmation", published in 1979 (6), is an excellent, and detailed study of the subject. He writes: "It is possible that in Kepler's view the conjunction had caused the development of the nova and it is even possible that he thought the conjunction at the time of Christ's birth caused the nova of 5 BC." Quite obviously, the clever Jesuit had foreseen that his peers would fall for his tricks, probably because Galileo still believed in the Aristotelian misconception that comets are atmospheric condensations (7). Galileo even insisted that planetary orbits are circular and tides are caused by the rotation of our planet. While Kepler anticipated Newton by establishing that tides are caused by the moon!
Let's look at the source of the above confusion: Kepler released Von einem ungewöhnlichen Neuen Stern in 1604, while the Nova was still in the sky, and De Stella Nova in 1606, with an appendix on the probable date of Christ's birth. He writes in the German tract:
:
(Rough translation: In my book, I had to discuss and compare the New Star of the year 1604 with the other New Star of 1600 years ago, which revealed to the Wisemen from the East the newborn king of the Jews, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I wrote, therefore, an appendix entitled 'de vero anno Natalitio Christi' where I claimed that our dates are wrong because Christ was born five years earlier. Hence, the star shined a year or two before, and also with, under and next to a great conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, in Pisces and Aries, and also at the entry to the Fiery Trigon, which is why both new stars have to be compared...")
We have underlined "with, under and next" which will become an important issue! Let's also note how odd it is that a mathematician like Kepler would use a "ballpark figure" of 1600 years! It was probably an incentive to calculate a better cycle, because he should have said 1609 years. But there is no ambiguity when he says that the only reason for comparing the "star" of 1604 the Star of Bethlehem is the fact that they were both "new stars". Before we identify these mysterious "stars", let's first expose Burke-Gaffney’s rhetoric once again. By having featured the Nova that appeared next to the conjunction of 1604, he created a perfect set-up to conclude from the above that Kepler, "born of erudition wedded to astrology by misguided genius” believed that another Nova announced the birth of Christ, and worse, that Kepler held them for cometary stars in the atmosphere. However, this is easily debunked by checking Kepler's German tract (8), which he wrote in 1604 when the Nova was still in the sky, He says that it is located:
...in the highest heaven and firmament, among the fixed stars, and neither among the comets which move among the planets, nor the region below the moon or in the atmosphere.
Kepler goes on to explain that the "new star" of 1604 ignited at such immense distance from the planets that it was an entirely separate event. He jokes that only one "astrological power” could be felt at the time, not by its nature but by accident: It brought much excitement and profit to the printers because almost every theologian, philosopher, doctor and mathematician felt obliged to publish their speculations. As another example of this type of "astrological force", Kepler entertains his readers with an event in 1284 CE: The Bohemians discovered a "new star" which excited them so much that they freed their young king from captivity - even though they had made a mistake: The "new star" was merely an unusually bright Jupiter.
On the other hand, we know that Kepler had more than a passing interest in astrology, and it is in this "superstitious realm" where we need to look for true answers about this mystery star in the atmosphere. But contrary to Burke-Gaffney, our only agenda is restricted to the facts. No one is more qualified to explain Kepler to us than Albert Einstein (9), a wiseman of our era, who writes:
There we meet a finely sensitive person, passionately dedicated to his research for a deeper insight into the essence of natural events, who, despite internal and external difficulties, reached his loftily placed goal…
…the determination of the true movements of the planets, including the earth, as it would look to an observer established on the nearest fixed star, and completely equipped with a stereoscopic double-telescope. This was Kepler’s first great problem. The second problem lay in the question: What are the mathematical laws controlling these movements? Clearly, the solution of the second problem, if it were possible for the human spirit to accomplish it, presupposed the solution of the first. For one must first know an event before one can test a theory related to this event. In this way, Kepler won the foundation for the determination of the three fundamental laws that will remain linked to his name for all time. How much inventive power, how much tireless, obstinate work was necessary to reveal these laws, and to establish their certainty with great precision – naturally, can hardly been evaluated by anyone.
…He had to realize clearly that logical-mathematical theorizing, no matter how lucid, could not guarantee truth by itself; that the most beautiful logical theory means nothing in natural science without comparison with the exactest experience. Without his philosophic attitude, his work would not have been possible. He does not speak about this, but the inner struggle is reflected in the letters. The reader should note the remarks on astrology. They show that the inner enemy, conquered and rendered innocuous, was not yet completely dead.
How can we question Einstein? Of course, he is right. But we need Kepler's "inner enemy" to identify the "cometary star" in the atmosphere. And, according to a great sage of our time, there is no better guide. Especially, if we consider that Kepler knew Michael Meier in Prague and had a celebrated correspondence with Robert Fludd, according to Wolfgang Pauli! If we compare the compassionate evaluation of Einstein with Burke-Gaffney's bashing in "Kepler and the Jesuits", we can easily understand why the Jesuit dismissed the triangles and Trigons, and the cometary star. But why did he omit that Kepler assigned the supernova to regions far beyond our Solar System in both works, the German tract and in De Stella Nova of 1606? And why did he omit the fact that the "cometary star" was inspired by Balaam's prophecy in the Old Testament? This would have been permitted by his rules, even if astrology wasn't! With his hidden agenda fully exposed, we can only hope that the good father meant to help his students realize for themselves that Kepler discovered two entirely different types of stars: A Supernova among the fixed stars in 1604, and a truly miraculous star in the atmosphere? That this view was somewhat "Keplerian" is supported by Max Caspar, who writes that De Stella Nova reflects Kepler’s belief in a "sympathy" between the Universe (macrocosm) and the sub-lunar world (microcosm). (10) On the other hand, Burke-Gaffney's dislike of Kepler may have tainted his objectivity -- unless it was part of his rhetorical concept.
In this context, we can't overlook that during Galileo's persecution, the Jesuit University in Salamanca (Spain) continued to teach the Copernican system, and that Kepler had many friends among the Jesuits. Especially at Graz University (Austria), where Spanish members of the Society were teaching (11). Why else did the Jesuits quote Kepler's theory on the great conjunction of 6 BC so favorably, and why did some actually share his credulous belief in a "cometary star" of the atmosphere? (12). Could it be that the Society of Jesus had a change of heart in the matter, because it connects Ignatius Loyola to certain 9th century grail events, the subject of another chapter? But first, let's look at a surprisingly simple identification of the mystery-star, which is next.
Sources and references
1. Science News Letter, Washington D.C., December 19, 1936, p.393
2. The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Toronto,1937, pp.416-425
3. J. Burke-Gaffney, S.J., Kepler and the Jesuits, Bruce Publishing Company, 1944, p. 56
4. Note: The observatory at St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada is named in honor of Reverend M.W.Burke-Gaffney , S. J (1896-1979). It is located on the top of the 22-storey Loyola residence tower, and was made possible by an anonymous benefactor who wished to honor the university's
well-loved astronomer.
5. John Mosley, Common Errors in "Star of Bethlehem" Planetarium Shows, Griffith Obervatory, Los Angeles,Ca 1981, p.6
6. David Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem - An Astronomer's Confirmation, Walker and Company, New York, 1979, p.100
7. Angus Armitage, John Kepler, Faber and Faber, London, 1966, p.111
8. Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke, Max Caspar, "Bericht vom neuen Stern", Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1938, Vol.I, p. 394
9. Carola Baumgardt, Johannes Kepler - Life and Letters, Philosophical Library, New York, 1951, pp.9-13
10. Johannes Kepler, op. cit., p.441
11. Paul Urban/Berthold Sutter, Johannes Kepler 1571-1971, Gedenkschrift, Leykam-Verlag, Graz, 1975, p. 193
12. A.J. Maas, S.J., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 2dn. Edition, Herder, St. Louis, 1916, p.20
