When a supernova appeared in 1604 CE, the German astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote several works about this "New Star at the foot of the serpent holder". As the official astronomer of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague, Kepler was required to take a position because "almost every theologian, philosopher, doctor, and mathematician had to publish their theories" (Kepler), mostly as a comparison of the supernova with the Star of Bethlehem. Kepler started with a brief German article in 1604, while the supernova was still twinkling in the sky, which was followed by a comprehensive account in 1606 with the Latin book De stella nova... The latter had two articles in the appendix, one about a "new star" in 1600 and the other about the probable date of Christ's birth. A Polish Jesuit had written a book in 1605 about a four-year error in the Christian calendar, which allowed Kepler to suggest that Christ may have been born five years earlier. He calculated the planetary positions of 7- 6 BCE and came up with a controversial theory: The Star of Bethlehem was not a divine miracle, as the Church contends, but an astronomical event that was predictable. Kepler supported this claim with various sources from Antiquity to suggest that the Star of Bethlehem may have been another return of the Phoenix after it had burned to ashes. As this would be an important discovery, we intend to explore this conjecture in greater detail.
Isaac Newton wrote more works about religion than his scientific discoveries, which was the zeitgeist of the 17th century and explains why an astronomer could speculate about Christ's birth. Although such religiously themed works were usually ignored by serious scholars, excepting the Jesuits, the centuries long quietus ended on Dec. 19, 1936 when Washington's Science News ran the seasonal item Was Star Of Bethlehem Three Bright Planets? It reported: “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.” At the end of the article, a few planetariums are listed that could project the ancient skies of Judea “where the three bright planets are thus shown in a miraculously bright triangle.”(1)
This claim was attacked by the astronomer M.W. Burke-Gaffney S.J. at a Jesuit Seminary in Toronto, and the lecture published by the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada in 1937 (2). He identified Kepler as the discoverer of the "bright triangle", although he was not mentioned in the article, probably because "Kepler" rhymed with "Hitler", and the way the Jesuit summarized the superstitious beliefs established his hostile 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 "a fiery triangle in the Fiery Trigon" presaged great things for ancient astrologers, Burke-Gaffney published a diagram without this particular triangle. He chose October, 17, 1604, (left diagram) when a break in the clouds allowed Kepler to first observe the supernova, and curiously, as it tops a "fiery triangle" with Saturn and Jupiter. For lack of a better explanation, because Kepler had adjusted to the Gregorian calendar (neuer stil), it seems that the Jesuit tried to suggest that the "New Star" had something to do with the three planets, at least in Kepler's opinion.
|
|
|
If we trace the planetary positions back (to the right), and add them to the diagram, Kepler is confirmed: The fiery triangle formed before Mars "was to come, and be in conjunction with Saturn" in late September. But about two weeks later, and before Mars reached Jupiter, a triangle of watery symbolism formed as well. But why did the Jesuit fail to mention the second triangle? Is it because the diagram with the two triangles is only accessible to astronomers – and astrologers? Most amateurs are not familiar with the planetary movements along the ecliptic, which is at a steep angle near the horizon and would hide the symbolic meaning of the triangles. (Note that Sagittarius covers 0-30 degrees in the above diagrams and the dates are adjusted to the Gregorian calendar. Sagittarius is between 240-270 degrees on Tuckerman's tables below, which are based on the Julian calendar and ten days earlier):
After confusing his seminarians with his diagram, the Jesuit quotes 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 discovered the true orbits of the planets, Kepler expressed some astrological ideas about the Star of Bethlehem that contradicted his astronomical laws:
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... (Kepleri opera omnia, Frisch, vol. IV, pp.246-7)
Burke-Gaffney goes on to imply that Kepler’s peers ignored the strange reference to a "cometary star" in the "lower layer of the atmosphere" and focused exclusively on the triple-conjunction of Saturn in Jupiter in 7 BCE. Although Kepler had always featured a "great conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars", the Jesuit finds a subtle way to dismiss it completely by citing two eminent scholars, Ludwig Ideler of Berlin and Charles Pritchard of Oxford:
Pritchard does not even consider the approach of Mars to Jupiter and Saturn in February and 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...'
The statement that the three planets could not be mistaken for a single star is another rhetorical trick because we will show that it is the key to Kepler's discovery. Burke-Gaffney backs this up with Matthew's Gospel that defines the Greek aster as a singular star, not as a triangle of planets, and then calculates from Pritchard's planetary positions that the sun was already within 24 degrees of Saturn on February 12, 6 BCE, which is two weeks before the "miraculous triangle" formed. A little miscalculation of the sun's position by Pritchard and Ideler's vague reference "at about this time" is all he needed to debunk the article:
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, because the planetariums discontinued their popular Christmas shows. If the triangle was this close to the sun, it was invisible and meaningless. After all, the Magi were wise men, not fools! Conspiracy theorists might even suggest that the Vatican was so grateful to the good Jesuit for eliminating the "superstitious beliefs" of a misguided Lutheran astronomer that it donated the funds for an observatory in his name – anonymously, of course (4).
Thanks to the astronomers Robert Victor (Abrams Planetarium, East Lansing, Michigan) and John Mosley (Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles), there is solid proof that Burke-Gaffney was mistaken: Victor saw the Mars-Saturn conjunction on February 20, 1966, with the naked eye although the planets were closer to the sun than in 6 BCE., and were observed from a higher latitude than the Near East. Mosley, who introduced this writer to the controversy in the 1980s, checked Victor's calculations and confirmed that the triangle of 6 BCE was clearly visible (5).
Notes
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 Observatory, (Los Angeles, 1981), p.6
Available on-line!
Copyright (C) 1990 by Grailgate
