The Star of Bethlehem

According to Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

It is a common practice that scholars have to quote from their peers when they present new ideas, which is a problem if sources are unreliable. Unfortunately, Kepler is misinterpreted by astronomers who write books about the Star of Bethlehem, but lack the language skills to check his works directly. From 1606, when Kepler published De Stella nova, until 1998 and 2006 respectively when the first French and German translations became available, this book was only available in Latin. Contrary to popular opinion, these translations support Kepler’s German articles and confirm that he regarded the planetary massing and supernova in 1604 as unrelated events. He attributed all astronomical phenomena to "natural laws" and rejected astrology as a “human disease” and meaningless superstition. Furthermore, he cautiously linked the Star of Bethlehem to the phoenix myth, which expands the symbolism of the Star but reduces its meaning as a Christian miracle. Because “heretics” were still burned at the stake in that day and age, Kepler would have risked his life if he had openly revealed such a controversial discovery.

(Here is a brief summary for scholars in pdf format!)

1. Introduction

The Star of Bethlehem has a great significance for Christians because it is revered as the "divine annunciation" of Christ's birth. Two of the four Gospels in the "New Testament" have an account of the nativity – but with some differences: According to St Matthew, a miraculous star guided Magi to Bethlehem, where they adored the newborn child in a house. In St Luke's version, an angel was joined by a "multitude of the heavenly host" to announce the birth to shepherds in the fields, after which they visited the child in a manger in Bethlehem. Neither Gospel mentions the story of the other, but their religious symbolism is similar. The other two Gospels omit where Christ was born and refer to him as "Jesus of Nazareth". There are no original texts from the period to reconcile these differences, only later versions in Greek, Coptic, Aramaic, and Latin. The excerpts below are based on the earliest version of Matthew's Gospel, which is in Greek and from roughly 80-100 CE. It contains everything we know about the mysterious star:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of king Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all of Jerusalem with him. (Mt.2,1-3)

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem. (Mt.2,7)

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star they were overjoyed. (Mt.2, 9-10)

These quotes are from the New international Version of the Bible (1), which uses Magi although other translations refer to them as wisemen or astrologers. Following Tertullian (ca. 160-220 CE), many Christians venerate them also as the Holy Three Kings and believe their relics are enshrined in Cologne, Germany. The diverse interpretations may have been attempts by the early Church to distance itself from the Magi because of their negative image in the Book of Daniel. Although some Bible scholars went as far as proposing that Luke's angel was meant to replace Matthew's star, fundamental Christians believe in the simple solution that the shepherds visited first, followed by the Magi when the child was no longer in a stable. That King Herod would send the Magi to nearby Bethlehem, the "House of David", is based on Micah 5:1-6 in the Old Testament.

Because a book about the Star of Bethlehem has a wide audience among Christian denominations and sects, the mystery has always attracted some scholars, especially devout astronomers, because they regard it as a "divine miracle" that allows a scientific evaluation. But any acceptable solution would have to take the above quotes literally, which is quite a challenge:

                            1. The star appeared during the reign of King Herod.

                            2.  It was a singular star (aster), not a planet or conjunction. 

                            3.  It was first seen rising in the east and then moved westward.

                            4.  It announced the birth of a king, which the Magi recognized.

                            5.  The Magi knew time and direction, but not the exact location.

                            6.  The star went ahead of the Magi and stopped over the child.

We have shown in "Kepler & the Jesuits" that the German astronomer was the first to accept this challenge, which is why his peers are forced to start with his findings before they can develop their own theories. Most authors include his triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BCE, but they usually ignore that Kepler featured the "great conjunction" of the two planets with Mars in February of 6 BCE. They also dispute or misinterpret his other findings to strengthen their own case as we will show below.

Kepler 's first achievement was a revision of Biblical chronology to establish that the Church miscalculated the date of Christ's birth because King Herod died in 4 BCE, and most experts accept that the Star of Bethlehem would have appeared between 8 and 5 BCE. Although the diverse authors have different explanations for the "star", the majority agrees with Kepler that it would have been a predictable, astronomical event that could be interpreted as a royal or Messianic omen, and that the Magi were either Chaldeans or Medians, and probably Zoroastrian priests. The royal symbolism for Christ is based on the Gospel, which introduces him as a descendant of King David (Mt. 1:1) and relates that the letters INRI were attached to the cross to mock Christ as the "King of the Jews" (Mt. 27:37).

Before we make our case, we should establish that Kepler had to address Christ's birth date because it was his duty as imperial mathematician to take an official position when a supernova appeared in 1604. This was a spectacular event in a world without electricity and electronic media, and it was widely compared to the Star of Bethlehem, just as Tycho Brahe's nova had been in 1572. But aside from writing about the supernova and the birth of Christ, Kepler established the true orbits of the planets around the Sun, observed comets, made weather forecasts, studied optics, invented a water pump, wrote the first sci-fi story Somnium about a trip to the moon, and supplemented his meager income by casting horoscopes for the rich and famous. In this light, the modern attempts to solve the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem "from an astronomer's point of view" seem rather limited. Such efforts are like describing a coin from only one side, as it is unlikely that any modern astronomer could match Kepler's expertise.

2. Kepler's rhetorical concept

In addition to his other activities, Kepler had to be an expert astrologer because his employer in Prague was emperor Rudolf II, a passionate patron of the "hermetic arts" and practitioner of alchemy and astrology. Thus, Kepler was forced to appease two powerful institutions, a superstitious emperor and the Church, which rejected "new stars" because it maintained that God's creation ended with Genesis, and that Earth was the center of the universe. Kepler was also ahead of his time because he believed, like most Christians today, that God created the universe and all its natural laws, which are open to scientific study. But he lived in an age when "heretics" where burned at the stake by fanatical theologians of both sides, Catholic and Reformed, which forced him to attribute a "supernatural meaning" to the supernova with a religiously themed rhetoric before he could add his sober, scientific evaluations. It was also a time of transition from the Renaissance to the complex Baroque era, which is quite apparent in Kepler's colorful expressions, especially in the German previews of his Latin works. Although most scholars take him for a devout Lutheran, because he had studied theology and made passionate declarations of his creed in his works, they don't seem to consider that it could have been part of his rhetoric to keep the theologians off his back. Kepler implied this in a letter in 1610, which is quoted from Nachbericht (2): "We can operate with three arguments openly, but the fourth shuts our mouth and eyes, and remains obscure in the background: because the authority of the theologians of all sides is so oppressive that I have to lament this age as most unfortunate."

By complaining that he had to close his eyes to certain things, and even shut his mouth, Kepler seems to be indicating that what he put down in writing should not always be taken literally, and that he may have used metaphors and ambiguities to offer a choice of more than one interpretation. If we follow up with this conjecture, it becomes rather obvious that Kepler had much to say between the lines, and some quotes (below) suggest that he was working on a major discovery he could not reveal openly. Apparently, the excessive power of the theologians was not only a major obstacle for Kepler, but also for those modern astronomers who took everything he wrote verbatim.  

Undoubtedly, our interpretation of Kepler's discovery is as controversial as their conjectures, but only because none of the experts have thought of it! It would be quite acceptable otherwise because Kepler identifies an actual "star" (aster) and connects it to the ancient myth of the phoenix, which expands the scope of its meaning beyond Christianity. Furthermore, we can confirm the above criteria 1- 6 in every respect, which should be an impressive score for anyone who takes the Bible literally. But the credit goes entirely to Kepler, as we will show below, because he solved the riddle of the miraculous "star", but couldn't reveal it openly because he would have risked his life. 

As stated above, Kepler is widely misquoted by astronomers who lack the language skills to read his works themselves. The scholar Max Caspar is considered an authority on the life and works of Kepler, and although he didn't address the language issue specifically, he confirmed that such a problem existed already before 1947 (3): "The literature about Kepler contains false or at least slanted statements, which one author took from another because he neglected to go back to the sources. Furthermore––and this appears self-evident––in order to portray and evaluate not only Kepler's life but also his intellectual contribution, it is necessary to have studied at least his principal works, difficult as they are." According to the astrophysicist and historian Owen Gingerich, Caspar was "eminently qualified" because he was like Kepler "born in southern Germany (in 1880), had been trained in both theology and mathematics, and had studied at the University of Tübingen". (4)

3. Common misinterpretations

The most prominent authors of books about the Star of Bethlehem were for decades two professors of astronomy: The Austrian Konradin Ferrari d'Occhieppo (5) and the Englishman David Hughes (6), who both deserve Caspar's critique because they suggested that Kepler confused the Star of Bethlehem with a nova in 5 BCE. Although Ferrari discovered an important planetary cycle of 854 years from Babylonian tablets (7), he identifies Jupiter on Nov. 12, 7 BCE, as the "star" which was enhanced by zodiacal light. Hughes develops his theory from Kepler's triple-conjunction in 7 BCE and matches Saturn "as Yahweh, star of the Jews" with Jupiter as "associated with kings" and the Christian Messiah, to conclude that the "star" was the acronychal rising of the two planets in mid-September of 7 BCE. 

Both scholars were eclipsed in recent years by Mark Kidger, an English astronomer in Spain, and by the American astronomer Michael R. Molnar, the latest media darling at Christmas time. As a brief summary, it can be said that Kidger follows Hughes very closely, because he regards the planetary conjunctions in 7 BCE as a prelude for the "star", which he identified as a supernova in 5 BCE. The most original concept is offered by Molnar who used his coin collection to identify Jupiter, like Ferrari, but in 6 BCE when it eclipsed twice with the moon in Aries, the alleged "sign of the Jews". This occurs roughly every 60 years, which Molnar considers significant, although it means that Jerusalem attracted astrologers regularly – until the Magi got lucky. Nevertheless, his theory is endorsed by other astronomers, including Gingerich, which gives it substantial clout. But Kidger disagrees with Molnar, because his eclipses were either invisible during the day or barely visible at dusk, while Molnar disagrees with Kidger, because supernovae are not predictable. But one undisputable fact is conveniently not brought up: None of the above identified a real star that only astrologers could have seen and predicted.

 Kepler's elusive "star" seems to repeat every 800 years, which would make it more unique, but its identification remains quite a challenge. The first problem is the academic tradition that scholars need to consider the findings of their peers, which leads to the second problem: Because Ferrari and Hughes misinterpreted Kepler, this was perpetuated by the astronomers who relied on their findings.

The third problem is that Kepler's religiously themed works are usually ignored by serious astronomers, unless they are attracted by their faith. Ferrari, who predates Hughes and is cited by him, was the first to suggest that Kepler took the Star of Bethlehem for a nova (8). This edition has a brief introduction by the German theologian Rainer Riesner who praises Ferrari as an "astronomer with an interest in history and a devout Christian", which may explain his point of view. But Ferrari was apparently unable to read De stella nova in Latin and relied on its German summaries by Max Caspar (9), who was another devout Christian because he downplayed Kepler's Pythagorean and Platonic views to characterize him as a pious Lutheran. As a consequence, most Christian scholars seem to take Kepler's passionate confirmations of his creed verbatim and fail to notice the ambiguities and rhetorical reversals. 

Hence, a devout Christian like Ferrari may not have even noticed Kepler's rhetoric in Das unser Herr und Hailand... (1613), the German preview of De vero anno (1614):

"My book forced me to compare and confer 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 with the Title 'de vero anno Natalitio Christi' where I claimed that our date is too short and that Christ was born five years earlier, and because of the star that shined a year or two earlier, as well with, under and next to a 'great conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars' in Pisces and Aries, and also at the beginning of the Fiery Trigon, is why both stars can be compared..." (10)

            Kepler reveals here that both "New Stars" appeared during a "great conjunction", which made modern astronomers jump to the conclusion that he mistook the Star of Bethlehem for a supernova. But if they had read this text a few times, they would have noticed that Kepler compared both "New Stars" because they appeared at the same time and place as the planetary massings in 6 BCE and 1604 CE. Aside from eliminating the nova of 5 BCE, his information is clearly limited to the location and time because the work is about Biblical chronology and addresses the theologians. A physical comparison of the "New Stars" for his peers, the mathematicians and astronomers, was no longer necessary as it had already been established in chapter 26 of De stella nova. Until the modern translations were available, astronomers had to be fluent in Latin to find this text and understand Kepler's clever rhetoric! The way he puts it would certainly surprise Hughes et al, Gingerich included:

"Because God wanted to lead them (i.e. the Magi) to Christ, he alerted them by igniting a star. And almost all circumstances point to the possibility that the purpose of this star was quite similar to that of the modern star, if we think away the immobility and height of our star, because it also appeared at the moment of a returning Fiery Trigon and at the time of the conjunction." (11)

            It is obvious here that Kepler did not mistake the Star of Bethlehem for a supernova, as his critics were led to believe from bad translations because he states clearly that both stars would only have been similar "if we think away" (ignore) the fact that the supernova had no motion and appeared among the fixed stars. This is in sharp contrast to the star that moved ahead of the Magi and stopped above the newborn child! Another important clue is Kepler's encouragement to use our imagination, which will be addressed in the conclusions!

If we take Kepler by his word, we are forced to conclude that an additional star appeared during the "great conjunctions" of the three planets, a mysterious star of which we have no record. Hence, Kepler differentiated clearly between two types of "new star":

                      1. A supernova in October, 1604, which he established as a natural, astronomical event.

                      2. The Star of Bethlehem in February, 6 BCE, an unknown, astrological phenomenon.

4. The search for the other "New Star"

In De stella nova, Kepler opens with the supernova, from the first sightings in 1604 until its disappearance in early 1606. In the second chapter, he addresses the "empty talk" (leeres Geschwätz) of the astrologers that "affects the majority of humanity like a disease" and who propose that the Fiery Trigon with the planets (at left) could have something to do with the supernova. He goes on to cover some of the most popular speculations and superstitions and adds slowly some scientific views (chapters 2-11), which he expands with calculations (chapter 12) to localize the supernova in the realm of the fixed stars. The next chapters introduce the heliocentric concept of Copernicus and feature the position of the supernova in the Zodiac, its relation to other stars, distance from Earth, quality of light, and the matter it's made of, which Kepler assumes to have come from the Milky Way. He then compares the concept of Copernicus with the Ptolemaic System, and begins a philosophical discussion, from Pythagoras to Plutarch, to deal with the diverse opinions about the supernova and its alleged meaning from all different points of view. Most of these interpretations are dismissed during his first conclusions (chapters 26-27) and by his rhetoric in the second part (28-30), which will be addressed in detail below. 

 During his colorful arguments, Kepler eliminates the Fiery Trigons as meaningless, but maintains that the "great conjunctions" of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars are important, according to St. Cyprian. We will show in our conclusions that this pertains to the "magic art" of the Magi, even though (or because) Kepler's description of their astrology is a blatant violation of every astronomical law:

"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, vol.4. pp.346-47)

  This confirms that Kepler distinguished between two entirely different "New Stars", one astronomical and the other astrological, because he had localized the supernova among the fixed stars, and proposes here that the Star of Bethlehem was a cometary star in the atmosphere. But this is a stretch of the imagination none of his modern peers could follow! The above quotes led Hughes (12) to the absurd interpretation that Kepler believed that planetary conjunctions had the force to create "new stars" in 1604 and 5 BC, which other astronomers seem to have followed blindly. Even Molnar, who used the second-opinion of the Jesuit Burke-Gaffney (13), misinterpreted Kepler by concluding: "...it was natural for him to suspect that the conjunction had caused the bright star to burst forth" (14). But if any of the above had been able to read German and Latin, they would have known that Kepler dismissed this popular idea as "childish" (15) and joked that it would have been like "a mosquito bringing forth an elephant" (16).

 Kidger solved the problem of the "cometary star" by suggesting that the nova in 5 BCE could have been confused with a comet as the Chinese (hui-hsing) and Korean (po-hsing) records are open to interpretation. Because Molnar is more of an eloquent writer than a researcher, he eliminated the "cometary star" by concluding from the above quote that Kepler's "mysticism led him to believe instead that the Star of Bethlehem had been a miracle, not a comet or new star. He believed that it had been a special star, one that the Magi could never have foreseen". By eliminating Kepler as a misguided mystic, Molnar could market his theory with the support of Gingerich. Neither astronomer was obviously aware of the fact that Kepler established that Brahe's nova in 1572 and his supernova were quite different from the "cometary star". In fact, he spelled it out so clearly even a child would understand it:

"We must... declare to avoid many great absurdities, that both ignited in the highest heaven and firmament, among other fixed stars, and not like comets lower among the planets, and much less below the moon or in the element of the air..."   (See German, 394: 22-27).

          Another obstacle for modern astronomers was the need to separate their own religious faith from the astrological superstitions that prevailed in Kepler's era, which could turn the absurd concept of a "cometary star" into a serious, interdisciplinary challenge, if they can't check the sources. It would surprise them that it was accepted by a Jesuit scholar as late as 1916. Following Kepler, the Reverent A. J. Maas proposed that the Gospel "requires an additional miraculous appearance of a star in the lower region of the atmosphere" (17). This strange view seems to have prevailed in Christian circles for centuries, even though everyone knows that a "falling star" or meteor can neither stop nor stand still in the atmosphere. This is why modern authors had the creative idea to explain the alleged stopping of the Christmas Star with the retrograde motion of the planets, an optical illusion that is only visible from Earth. Nevertheless, Kepler's choice of veiled remarks may have saved his life as they seem to have pleased the Church and secured the star as a "divine miracle" well into the 20th century.

The quietus ended in December of 1936, when Washington's Science News acknowledged the Christmas season by reporting that "modern astronomers" discovered a "miraculously bright triangle" in the sky at the time of Christ's birth, which had become a popular Christmas show in American planetariums (18). After the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in 7 BCE, Mars had joined the two planets to form a triangle in February of 6 BCE. We will show below that it formed exactly nine months after the first conjunction, and that it is the key to Kepler's "cometary star", which might explain why the claims in the article were disputed by another Jesuit.

In 1937, at a Jesuit seminary in Toronto, Canada, the above-mentioned M.W. Burke-Gaffney S. J. (19) identified Kepler as the discoverer of the triangle and that astrologers regarded it as a major omen. Because we will show below that this is a partial identification of the "cometary star", the Jesuit needs to be quoted in extenso:

“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..."

Without elaborating on the "fiery triangle",  Burke-Gaffney went on to dismiss the "cometary star' in the lower atmosphere as "typically Keplerian, born of erudition wedded to astrology by a misguided genius”. He cited two eminent scholars, Ludwig Ideler (Berlin) and Charles Pritchard (Oxford), to calculate that Kepler's "great conjunction" of the three planets was "too close to the setting sun to be seen by naked eye", and concluded that the article in the Science News was "misleading, inasmuch as the triangle could not be seen." Soon thereafter, his peers discontinued their popular planetarium shows because the Magi were known as wisemen – not as fools.

But seventy-five years later, Burke-Gaffney's hostile agenda is easily exposed. Most experts would agree today that Kepler was not "wedded to astrology by a misguided genius". Albert Einstein, a contemporary of the Jesuit, praised Kepler as “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" (20). But most important, the American astronomers John Mosley and Robert Victor compared the planetary positions near the sun on Feb. 20, 1966, and were able to prove that the triangle in 6 BCE would have been "clearly visible" (21). 

5. Kepler's ambiguous concept

With the position of Maas restored, we are forced to speculate why Kepler would feature a "cometary star"? After all, he is celebrated as the "father of astronomy" and discoverer of the true motions of our Solar system! How could there be an additional star that descended miraculously into the atmosphere? Besides, Kepler seems to suggest that there were two different "new stars" in 1604 as well, and as a logical consequence only the other "new star" would have been like the one that led the Magi to Bethlehem! This is even implied by Burke-Gaffney when he mentioned that Kepler claimed to have found "a grain in the dung of Arabian superstition", and that all eyes were turned to the sky “to see if there would be a comet, as had been expressly predicted by the astrology of the Arabs.” As astrologers were watching the sky during the massing of the three planets, a supernova appeared to everyone's surprise. We will show below that it was not the star they had predicted because an additional star did indeed appear at the same time, one that was only visible to astrologers! When Kepler published De Stella nova in 1606, he added this little vignette to the cover with a hen and her ten chicks scratching for grains in the fertile dung of a farmyard. That this humorous symbolism is the key to his rhetorical concept is explained by Kepler a few years later in "Tertius Interveniens" (22), because no one seems to have noticed it. : He advises the theologians, doctors and philosophers not to discard all astrological superstitions, because "aside from the stinking dung, there are some grains for a busy hen, and even a pearl or corn of gold to be found." From this entertaining allegory, Kepler goes on to say that he took "some precious pearls and gold from astrology" and added them to his book De stella nova for the "lovers of natural secrets to see, recognize, and swallow..." The scenario of the stinking manure, enhanced by Kepler's jokes, allowed him to reveal rather openly that he has hidden some "precious items" in his works to guide enlightened readers to the additional "star". This encouragement is not as easy to comply with, because we need to recognize what is the "stinking dung", and what not. We have only found a few precious items so far, which are hard to swallow, but others will follow for sure.

For Burke-Gaffney, however, the dung of superstition provided great stuff to ridicule the German astronomer. He was apparently blinded by the political events of 1936, because "Kepler" rhymed with "Hitler" and anything German was either suspect or despised. This may explain why he failed to consider the "internal and external difficulties" of Kepler that Einstein had mentioned: Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Rome, Galileo persecuted, Kepler's mother accused of witchcraft, and he himself "more than once" in fear for his life – which he expressed in his letters (23). It was an age of mass-hysteria when "heretics" were murdered publically in many parts of Europe! According to Caspar, Kepler reacted to the charges against his mother "with unutterable distress... nearly causing my heart to burst in my body". After six years of accusations, his mother had to spend 14 months in prison, bound in chains, threatened with torture, and always guarded by two men. Kepler paid the costs of her imprisonment, led her defense during the witch trial, and was finally able to use "his prestige as imperial mathematician to save her from certain death at the stake" (24).

            In 1621, after Kepler had moved to Linz, 27 prominent citizens of Prague were beheaded or hanged publically, "men that were close to Kepler, including his friends Jessennius and Budowetz von Budow" (25). Kepler survived this deadly environment because he neither engaged in politics nor openly contradicted the Church, either Catholic or Protestant, as both delivered "heretics" to the flames. We must also keep in mind that his religious articles were censured by theologians (26), and that the Church was so powerful that he only dared to propose that Christ may have been born a few years earlier than assumed after a Polish Jesuit had written a book about the four-year error in the Christian calendar. These events are covered in the book Kepler and the Jesuits, where Burke-Gaffney expands his attacks of Kepler and ridicules him for writing to a Jesuit friend that the implications of a grain he had found in Arabian dung may be in accordance with their rules (27).

            That Kepler included several "precious items" in his works has never been brought up, as far as we know, because he used ambiguities and a sophisticated rhetoric that only scholars who were fluent in Latin would be able to discern. It is only since 1998, when the French translation of Jean Peyroux (28) became available, and in 2006 (29), when a German translation was added, that his concept can be analyzed by everyone who understands these modern languages. However, the work is so complex that only an astrophysicist with an extensive knowledge of theology and philosophy is qualified to offer an objective evaluation of Kepler's genius. An important part of this task would have to be an examination of his religious faith, because the Lutherans and Calvinists had become so dogmatic and intolerant, that the achievements of the Reformation were actually threatened (30). Again, only an expert can verify this, but it seems that Kepler evolved to a Pythagorean and Platonic humanist and may have had certain Arian (31) and perhaps even pantheist tendencies. Although Caspar captures some of the philosophic and scientific beliefs during the Renaissance, and how they affected the religious conflicts, he laments that they were "to the detriment of Germany and made those suffer who recognize Christ as the Savior of the world." The "chief stumbling block", he writes, "was the interpretation of the Lord's Supper", which the feuding denominations interpreted differently, even splitting Calvinists and Lutherans, and these bitter disputes were laying "as an oppressive burden on the whole life of Kepler." Caspar sums up this rather questionable interpretation with "a time fraught with disaster, a time in which one would gladly flee to the stars in order to find home and security there." (32)

            These compassionate words were written in the 1940s and are probably expressing Caspar's personal feelings during WWII. He was a devout Christian and he may have taken some of Kepler's religious remarks literally and never noticed that he dramatized them to pacify hostile theologians. In fact, Caspar's comments indicate that he had a limited understanding of why Kepler lamented in a letter that he regarded the age he lived in as oppressive and deplorable. Because he was forced by theologians to shut his eyes and mouth, Kepler joked in the preview of De stella nova in 1604 (German text) that the meaning of the "new star" is rather "difficult to discern and only this is certain: it either means nothing – or something so important that it is beyond our comprehension." 

            In regards to the astrological influence of the supernova on politics and the general public, Kepler entertained his readers by saying that it did have a great influence "not by its nature but 'by accident'... because it created excitement and profit for the printers as almost every theologian, philosopher, doctor and mathematician… conducted studies and wanted to come to light with their findings." To illustrate the force of this kind of superstitious belief, he ends with an event in 1284 when the Bohemians were so inspired by a “new star” that they freed the heir to the throne from captivity, although they had made a mistake: it was merely an unusually bright Jupiter in Sagittarius.

            Among the many superstitious beliefs and predictions he had to address, Kepler echoed also the typical anti-Semitic views of his era (33), which are rarely mentioned today even though he framed them with an ingenious rhetoric that forced prejudicial Christians to admire the Jews. Among his diverse arguments in support of Judaism, Kepler points out that the Jews are always favored by God and that their genealogy goes back to the beginning of time. He even asked in geste why God would have waited forty years with the destruction of Jerusalem to punish the Jews for the crucifixion? It is another example of his sophistication that he saved the most controversial issues, like extra-terrestrial life for chapter 30, and that he made his anti-Semitic remarks in the context of astrology in chapter 27, which he eliminated as a "human disease" and meaningless superstition.

            The possibility that Caspar had some anti-Semitic views himself is suggested in his Nachbericht in 1938 (34), which was written when Hitler was at the peak of his power and celebrated as "Man of the Year" on the cover of Time Magazine. Caspar quotes Kepler's ant-Semitic comments in great detail, but mentions only one of his rhetorical disclaimers: "... for whom God may have special plans?" Although this could be interpreted as an ominous prognosis, he pleased the Nazis in 1943 (excerpt) with a passionate and award-winning celebration of "Nikolaus Kopernikus" as a German scholar. (Note: These conjectures about Caspar are highly speculative and still under construction! His summary in 1938 deserves a critical review by an expert because he distorts Kepler's concept for reasons that are difficult to discern, unless he underestimated Kepler's sophistication. Hellman's translation of Caspar's book "Kepler" (1947) is rather basic and painfully literal, which may have even escaped Gingerich's attention. She seems to have relied too much on a dictionary and fails, unfortunately, to capture any of Caspar's passion and eloquence, which is great reading in German.) Consistent with the general "amnesia" in Germany after the war, Caspar omits Kepler's anti-Semitic comments in 1947 when he mentions Kepler's list of the popular predictions in his book, from a universal conflagration to the conversion of America, the downfall of Islam and the return of Christ, to name a few.

            In view of Caspar's above-mentioned critique that "The literature about Kepler contains false or at least slanted statements", it is difficult to understand why he would characterize Kepler as a devout Christian and summarize De stella nova accordingly, only to mislead other authors as well.  A typical example is his ambiguous reference to the supernova (p.154): "He pointed out that it is part of the world  of fixed stars, which at that time could not be taken as a matter of course. In contrast to the opinion that the new planets had ignited the new star, he supported the stand that he was here dealing with an agglomeration of heavenly material, which also manifests itself in other phenomena." To make matters worse, he concludes that after Kepler had covered the many predictions about the "New Star", he "pushes all those thoughts aside" and "breaks off his arguments with a jerk" because "he was not employed as a public prophet".

            In the new German translation, the "heavenly material" of the supernova (35) has no religious connotation because "Himmel" could mean heaven or sky. Kepler, however, attributed the origins of the supernova and its matter to the Milky Way, like Tycho Brahe, which is even acceptable today. And contrary to Caspar's conclusion, Kepler eliminated the philosophical, astrological and theological speculations and insisted that the universe is guided by "natural laws" before he broke off "with a jerk". Even the disclaimer that he was "not employed " by the emperor "as a public prophet" did not pertain to these issues, as Caspar contends. It was merely a clever apology for offering less theological arguments than Kepler's readers had probably expected, because he was under orders to promote astronomy.

            Before we deal with this controversy and show how Kepler enriched the late Renaissance with his unique Baroque humor and genius, here are a few more of those precious "grains" from De stella nova (German translation), although we have barely scratched the surface, pun intended:

             I. On superstitions: The supernatural perceptions of humanity began when dreams, sacrifices, thunder, lightening, inundations, earthquakes, comets, etc. were interpreted as “divine messages”. Hence, when "people started to believe that the gods used the heavenly signs to talk to them" they invented astrology to find some kind of explanations (pp. 220-21).

             II. On astrology: In the above context, Kepler makes a reference to the "Pythian Oracles" (p.155) to argue against the Epicureans, but his foes may not have realized that Plutarch explains in this work how to calculate the lifespan of the phoenix. Kepler uses it as a setup to propose later that if our early civilization had realized that the stars and planets are subject to the "natural laws", they would have never come up with their foolish interpretations and superstitions (p.221), 

III. On blind faith: Kepler rephrases a quote by Plutarch of Sophocles as follows: "A wiseman is not limited by the ambiguity of oracles, a fool needs no explanation to understand them." (Ein Weiser wird durch keine Zweideutigkeit bei Orakeln behindert, dem Toren genügt jedoch keine Erklärung um sie zu verstehen).  (p.222)    

             IV. On the supernova as an omen: "It is natural that a New Star will dim slowly and finally disappear, and this natural process (which is not caused by God) can not represent an omen. (natürlich ist, dass ein Neuer Stern allmählich matt wird und schliesslich verlöscht, dieser natürliche Vorgang (als nicht von Gott herbeigeführt) kann kein Omen darstellen…) (p.231)

             V. On God's will: "If it had pleased God to show humanity his intentions openly, he would have created alphabetical letters and written with them on the sky; therefore people oppose God's with their speculations in vain." (Hätte es Gott gefallen, den Menschen offen zu zeigen, was er wolle, dann hätte er Buchstaben gebildet und damit am Himmel geschrieben; also stemmen sich die Menschen mit ihrer Mutmassung vergeblich dem göttlichen Willen entgegen.) (p. 233)

VI. On the universe: “If we assume that our supernova was ignited by of a firm decision of God or by a being with a rational mind (!), I could be asked what purpose I would attribute to it and whether the message of the star could be related to what we humans are currently doing. Firstly, I think that not only certain peoples, but our entire planet is far too irrelevant to waste our thoughts on the meaning of a star in the highest realms". (Wenn man also annimmt, dass unser Stern durch den festen Ratschluss Gottes oder eines mit Verstand begabten Wesen entfacht wurde, könnte man mich fragen, welchen Zweck ich dabei unterstelle und ob die Botschaft des Sternes auf das zu beziehen sei, was wir Menschen eben treiben. Erstens nun meine ich, dass nicht nur einzelne  Völker, sondern der ganze Erdball allzu kümmerlich ist, als dass man auf dessen geringen Umfang unsere sämtlichen Gedanken über die wahre Bedeutung eines Gestirns im höchsten Äther verschwenden sollte.) Secondly, "the universe is vast indeed, and the opinion of ancient philosophers did not seem too far off for Tycho Brahe when they concluded that also the other very gigantic celestial bodies have their own inhabitants, perhaps not human beings, but nevertheless other beings.." (Riesig ist ja die Welt, und die Meinung alter Philosophen erschien Tycho Brahe nicht so abwegig, wenn sie feststellten, dass auch die übrigen überaus riesigen Weltkörper ihre eigenen Einwohner hätten, vielleicht zwar nicht Menschen, aber doch andere Wesen…) (p.224)

           Based on the German translation, the emphasis of our study is currently Max Caspar's evaluation of Kepler's cosmology and religious faith, which is clearly contradicted by the above examples. This includes the possibility of plagiarism, because Caspar cites Christian Frisch too briefly and omits the biographical researches of Ludwig Günther (36) by crediting him only as the translator of Somnium. Then there is a biography by Carl Gustav Reuschle, who like Kepler, Frisch and Caspar had studied theology first, and then mathematics and astronomy at the university of Tübingen! The three scholars present Kepler's problems with the theologians in greater detail and occasionally in conflict with Caspar's interpretation, yet are not credited. Gingerich noticed that something is amiss here as well, because he finds it "strange" that Caspar's "treatment, so rich in extensive quotations, was prepared with virtually no footnotes or citations. Its translator, the late C. Doris Hellman, remarked on this deficiency, but elected to indicate only a few of the sources."

            In his introduction, Gingerich goes on to explain that he compiled the missing citations for several decades in preparation for the Dover edition, which he brought to "nearly 1200" in collaboration with Alain Segonds. Surprisingly, neither Günther nor Reuschle are included, although Burke-Gaffney is featured without the S. J. after his name, on top of the list as a source for "Kepler's Philosophical and Theological Outlook". (It's an entertaining idea that the inclusion of the cunning Irish padre may have led Molnar to false conclusions, which Gingerich accepted as mea culpa and motivated him to endorse Molnar's concept!)

             Hopefully, a modern expert like Volker Bialas can take a break from more important projects and enter this Baroque maze and point out why the Jesuits ignored Kepler's blatant heresies. It has been said that they impressed the Chinese with Kepler's astronomical findings to get permission for their missionary work. There is also the problem that the Roman and reformed Churches quoted Aristotle to argue that God created the universe only once, with the Earth in the center, and that the creation of a "new star" would be as heretical as questioning Joshua 10:12-14, where God allegedly lengthens a day by stopping the motion of the sun (sic) and moon to help the Israelites. The research of Günther shows also that reformed theologians were as conservative as the Catholics and regarded Kepler's defense of Copernicus a "dangerous heresy". This is an additional indication that Kepler was not a follower of any organized religion. Furthermore, Kepler wrote that Aristotle perceived the size of the universe as limited, which he based on its motion. Our big-bang-theorists would agree with that, but Giordano Bruno followed Copernicus and regarded the sphere of the fixed stars as stationary and infinite. The "unfortunate Bruno", according to Kepler, believed that "there are as many inhabited worlds as there are fixed stars in the universe". It is currently of interest for our study that the concept of an infinite universe would complicate the religious belief in a Creator, which the Big Bang Theory supports indirectly, because it would be unthinkable that something could come from nothing and expand into nothing. Until we find evidence for other Big Bangs and endless "multiverses", an eminent astrophysicist like Gingerich can find a perfect harmony between science and his Christian faith, and even write a book about "God's Universe"(37). 

            In chapter 26 of De stella nova, Kepler begins with his conclusions and divides the diverse interpreters of the supernova into four groups: 1. astrologers, 2. physicists, 3. philosophers, and 4. theologians. The latter "derive their opinion from the Scriptures", writes Kepler, because examples from the Old Testament reveal that God communicated with certain individuals, from Abraham to the Pharaoh, including the Magi.

             In chapter 27, Kepler eliminates the astrological superstitions and philosophical theories he had brought up earlier, allegedly with the help of theology, until two final options remain: Either the supernova had ignited at the time of a planetary triangle because the universe is guided by natural laws, or it was a supernatural event and "a firm decision by the almighty God to bring salvation to humanity"! The last remark is part of his rhetorical concept against the theologians as neither the "firm decision" nor "salvation" had been established, and because Kepler could have written "by God's creation" to pacify his critics, but had it addressed with the "natural laws". To cover this up, it seems, he continues the chapter with a passionate declaration of his faith to end it with: "The name of the Lord be praised from eternity to eternity because his are the wisdom and the power!" 

Kepler may have thought that chapters 26-27 turned out too ambiguous, because he added a second part with stronger statements, which for "difficult time problems" was not printed in Prague, but in Frankfurt. Chapters 28-30 continue the arguments of chapter 27 and include the extraordinary ideas we quoted above (I-VI), where Kepler established that the supernova was a natural event, and not ignited by God. In chapter 29, however, he includes the usual declaration of his faith: "I am absolutely certain, that the whole process, and of the circumstances I described, came from a deeper source and lastly from divine providence, which can't be limited to narrow, natural causes." (p.215). This is another quote that is easily taken out of context, although it pertains exclusively to a historical summary from the fall of the Roman Empire to the invention of the printing press and its benefits for humanity, and not to anything astronomical! Because Kepler could have been accused of favoring the "natural laws" over God's will, except for his pious disclaimers, he closed De stella nova with the apology (p.241) that his theological and political arguments turned out shorter than expected because the emperor had not employed him "to play the public prophet... but to promote astronomy". This is phrased so brilliantly that pious readers could not imagine that he was merely referring to the theological arguments. 

            We have seen earlier that Caspar's summary distorts the facts by omitting the two final choices in chap. 27, and that he didn't even understand why Kepler didn't want "to play the public prophet". Caspar's simplistic approach allowed him to ignore chapters 28-30 as well, and that Kepler left a few open questions, especially about the "cometary star". Aside the "fiery triangle" that the planets had formed and De nive sexangula, the most direct reference to the "star" is this wood-cut of three planets on Christmas morning, Dec. 25, 1603, which is an esoteric preview of the "magic art" of the Magi. The picture is an interactive trompe d'oeil because it contains several triangles: We can tilt our head a bit to the right and see the "fiery" and to the left to see a "watery" triangle. Or we twist our neck even more and notice other triangles. But before get hurt, we better consider that wise men can do this without contortions because they use their imagination!  

Modern astronomers have apparently overlooked Kepler's Eselsbrücke that celebrates Christmas in 1603, because Mercury is known since Antiquity as the "messenger". The message suggests that the mystery of the "cometary star" relates directly to the "miraculously bright triangle" the Science News had reported, when after the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, Mars had joined the two planets to form a fiery triangle aon February 28, 6 BCE, at the horizon.

6. Astronomical support

            Thanks to the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton and IBM, any amateur can check this out today. Bryant Tuckerman's Planetary, Lunar, and Solar Positions (38) allows a day-by-day reconstruction of the planetary movements in 7/6 BCE as seen below. The last two lines at the bottom show that on February 28 of 6 BCE, Saturn and Jupiter were about 6 degrees apart and were topped by Mars, which created a fiery triangle. But it was only visible to astronomers and astrologers, because they know the path of the planets.

In our calendar 1 BCE is followed by CE 1, because there was no 0 year, and the above -5 represents therefore 6 BCE! Because most amateurs can't translate these numbers into the planetary positions, we have added this little sketch (below). However, what began as a simple exercise to visualize the "miraculous triangle" turned into a major discovery, because two triangles had actually formed:

In 6 BCE: Fiery Triangle (Feb. 25) at left and Watery Triangle at right (Feb. 11)

Just like reading a Hebrew text, the planets need to be followed from the right to the left, and if we follow their course, there was earlier a watery triangle the Science News did not mention, probably because it was only of interest for astrologers. Mars starts near 346 degrees to flank the right side of the first triangle on February 11, and it continues toward the left to pass Saturn to top the second triangle on February 25, 6 BCE. During that time, Jupiter moved only about three degrees and Saturn about half as much, while Mars joined them at a much higher speed.

In recent years, astronomers have abandoned Tuckerman's tables because of some inaccuracies, especially for the positions of Mars. According to Nick Strobel, the computations of JPL are preferred today and, fortunately, we used them as a "second opinion" for this project since the 1980s. Below are the planetary positions between February 14 and 24 as printed out by NASA, which enable us to calculate that the fiery triangle formed a few days later. Instead of February 25, as shown on our sketch, the fiery triangle formed on February 28, which indicates that the "watery" was a few days later as well. In the detail at left, Strobel offers a great visualization of the sky this special evening, which forces us to tilt our head 90 degrees to the right to see the elongated fiery triangle with Mars on top. However, the picture shows also how the general public would have seen the planetary triangle above the horizon, because amateurs didn't know about the neck exercise. This establishes rather clearly that only astrologers would have known that two triangles had formed, and that only one was visible at a time. When we see the planets travelling across the night sky from East to West, like the Magi as they followed, it is merely another illusion which is caused by the rotation of Earth. In relation to the fixed stars, and the signs of the Zodiac, the planets move in the opposite direction. On Strobel's picture, they are moving upwards, away from the horizon, with Mars catching up soon with Jupiter and pass it afterwards.

Here's a brief description of the celestial spectacle: After the SAT/JUP conjunction on May 26, 7 BCE, both planets remained together within 7 degrees for nine months until they were joined by Mars to form the watery triangle. But only astrologers or wise men would understand their symbolism and know that during a metamorphosis of almost two weeks, a fiery triangle would form as well. (Note: Although the planets remain steadily on their course, the wobbling of the Earth changes our perspective, which creates the illusion that the planets slow down, remain together, and even move backwards against the background of the fixed stars!)

7. The "additional star" in 1604

 Kepler left another hidden message (or precious item) when he pointed out, according to Burke-Gaffney: "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..." The next clue was given by Burke-Gaffney as well when he wrote that all eyes were turned to the sky “to see if there would be a comet, as had been expressly predicted by the astrology of the Arabs."  If we search for this "additional star" in 1604, which would have been similar to the one that led the Magi to Bethlehem, we know from the above sketch what to look for. The chart at right is copied from Burke-Gaffney's article, to which the triangles are added. (Click on Tuckerman for the planetary positions!). Amateurs should note that it would have never occurred to astrologers and astronomers to view the planets as they were actually seen in the sky: they always adjusted to the ecliptic. Above is a copy of Kepler's own sketch to confirm this claim. The triangles formed in 1604 in the reverse order, because Mars passed below Saturn and Jupiter. However, the symbolism in 6 BCE of the watery triangle, followed by the fiery, was apparently more meaningful for the ancient astrologers. In any event, we finally have the explanation for Kepler's ambiguous statements in Dass unser Herr und Heiland... (1613), the German preview of De Vero Anno (1614), that there were additional stars in both years, in 1604 and 6 BCE. This has distracted most scholars because there were supernovae in 1604 CE and 5 BCE, although they could not have been predicted. The triangles, however, are not only famous Pythagorean symbols, but they could have also been predicted -- and it would have also been natural for astrologers to fuse them into this famous "star", as seen in perspective at the horizon. 

8. Kepler's "cometary star"

   It is a well-known fact that the ancient astrologers regarded comets as bad omens, as "harbingers of evil", because their sudden appearance interfered with their predictions. Kepler assigned the visible comets correctly to the realm of the planets, but it was unknown that many comets orbit the Sun and return in predictable intervals, which would eliminate the symbolism of a "cometary star". He meant that it was the cometary star from the "Oracles of Balaam", a Pagan seer for the Old Testament (Numbers 24:17). Although the Hebrew shebet is often translated as staff or scepter, the latter even by Luther, German scholars like Ideler (quoted by Burke-Gaffney) confirm Kepler's symbolism by translating shebet as "comet", which is also used in the "Complete Bible" of the University of Chicago (p. 145).

            Among Kepler's other esoteric signals, one stands out most dramatically: His above-mentioned little book De nive sexangula, which was inspired on the Charles Bridge in Prague when a snowflake landed on Kepler's sleeve. As it melted before his eyes, he started to wonder why every snowflake has six corners, and wrote a philosophical work about other six-cornered phenomena in nature. Andrea Dortmann (39) notes that most translators overlook that the full title is "Strena Seu De nive Sexangula", which is a bi-lingual word play that suggests "Star(s) and the six-cornered snow flake". But the story is even allegorical without the word play because the "cometary star" descends into the atmosphere as well and seems to "melt" like a snowflake in the sun. In contrast to the long planetary cycles, the two triangles formed within two weeks and each triangle was only visible for one night, after which the planets disappeared in the light of the evening sun. This comparison is confirmed by "Kepler's concept of a link between the macrocosm and microcosm" (Max Caspar), which is additional evidence that the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem is finally resolved:

Kepler's esoteric concept allows us to formulate a new hypothesis: On this special winter night in 6 BCE, when the "fiery triangle" stood in the sky, the "watery triangle" was still present in the mind of the Magi, and it  enabled them to fuse both triangles into a hexagram. Hence, when the "star" allegedly stood still in the lower atmosphere, it really did where the Magi were standing. This miracle happened on February 28, 6 BCE, and this is the first time their "magic art" can be revealed – thanks to a wise man of four hundred years ago!

 Although it is widely held that the "star" stood over Bethlehem, the Gospel is surprisingly precise by stating that it stood "over the place where the child was", which could refer to the Magi! Before their journey, they had seen the "star" rise in the East, which was the "acronychal rising in mid September 7 BC" of Saturn and Jupiter, as mentioned by Hughes. Ferrari established from Babylonian cuneiform tablets (40) that the Magi would have been able to predict the conjunctions of the planets, including their cycle with Mars. After they had observed the two planets rise in the East, they made their calculations and realized that Mars would join Saturn and Jupiter to form the triangles above the Western horizon. Hence, they observed this star during its formation, and eventually started their journey as the planets were seen every night moving farther West. Before the planets reached the horizon, the Magi arrived in Jerusalem and learned that a king would be born from the "House of David".

Bethlehem is only five miles away, and they arrived in time to see the miraculous "Star" at the horizon right after sunset – which was invisible for those who did not know about the "magic fusion" into a hexagram, the ultimate symbol of magic in the Middle Ages. According to the Jüdisches Lexikon (41), it was used in Germany as a secret symbol by Pythagorean beggar monks and for the "philosophers stone". This identification is supported by the Fiery and Watery Trigons of the Zodiac, brecause they match the tilted position of the triangles, as seen at right. Furthermore, the triangles appeared in an important part of the sky: Low above the horizon where the sun had set. According to Isidore of Seville, one of the Church Fathers, it is one of the two Gates of Heaven (Etymologies, 3, XXXIX). And finally, the "magic fusion" is also symbolized by the "Shield of David" or Magen David:

           The sketches visualize what went through the mind of the Magi! At left, the triangles are merely copied from the astronomical data and remind of Chrétien's Magic Sword. But this is a false impression because only one triangle was seen at a time!  The elongated shape of the planetary hexagram in the center looks like a star in perfect perspective at the horizon – as if it were shining down on Bethlehem – a symbolism which could be related esoterically to the fusion of the Jewish star at right.

          This raises the question how "Gentiles" like the Magi and Balaam could have known the symbolism of this star? Although it is associated with Israel today, we will show below that it is not necessarily of Davidic origins and was known before the Christian era in the East and West. This should be good news for Christians because a passage in Matthew's Gospel has finally a valid explanation:

The phenomenon of a single star (aster), not a planet or conjunction, which stood still over the child

on February 28, 6 BCE, in Bethlehem, the "House of David", when it fused in the minds of the Magi.

The celestial spectacle could even inspire the imagination of those who don't care about astrology: It begins on May 27 of 7 BCE with Mars in Virgo setting in the west, and shortly before dawn, Saturn and Jupiter rise in conjunction in the east, a few degrees short of Aries. Then, both planets begin their retrograde motion, as if waiting to capture Mars to form for the triangles. Saturn and Jupiter remain closely together for over six months, until December, while Mars passes four constellations to Capricorn.

            This gets even more "pregnant" with meaning if the Magi had calculated that the celestial scenario began in May, 7 BCE, because the first conjunction was exactly nine months before the triangles would form at the same location in the Zodiac, which is due to the retrograde motion of the planets, as seen from Earth. But because our planet spins in an Easterly direction, the planets were seen farther west every night until they reached the horizon, and Mars passed Saturn and joined the watery triangle in Pisces around Feb 12, and after a metamorphosis of about two weeks, topped the fiery triangle on Feb 28, 6 BCE, according to the JPL data.  

            With this solution for an old debate, even the midrash of Herod's problems find a valid explanation: According to the Gospel, Herod had only learned the time when the star appeared, not the actual birth date (Mt.2:7). The earliest date would have been May 27, 7 BCE (first conjunction), and the second nine months later, on February 28, 6 BC (the hexagram). But Herod's astrologers had to be careful, because this "new king" could have merely been conceived in February, and born another nine months later, in late November. Consequently, the span of 18 months supports the claim that Herod ordered the massacre of all boys under two years of age (Mt.2,16).

9. The astrophysical aspect

            This multi-faceted solution confirms the claims in the Gospel from 1-6, as announced at the top of this article, and it reconciles the narratives according to Matthew and Luke: The Star of Bethlehem was therefore an actual, astronomical event, which a sophisticated wise man seems to have put into simple words, according to St Matthew. But because simple people did not understand it, and because the Magi had a bad reputation from the Book of Daniel, another wise man retold the story in the Gospel according to St Luke and replaced the star and its planets with an angel and his "heavenly host", while retaining the meaning of a divine messenger. The use of parables was quite customary at the time – and it could mean that Jesus himself may have told these stories about his birth. That the first Christians introduced the Magi and their astrology could be an indication that the Magi educated Jesus, which would explain why about 30 years of his life are not mentioned in the Gospels.

            Unfortunately, Kepler lived in a period that was marked by superstitious beliefs and religious fanatism, which forced him to use a complex rhetoric to present this discovery esoterically. His evaluation of the supernova could only go as far as concluding that it was either a natural, astronomical event, which he established rather firmly, or that God had ignited it among the other fixed stars as a message for humanity. This is pretty much how it is even viewed today, although a pious astrophysicist would simply combine the two solutions. Because Kepler dismissed the symbolism of the Trigons of the Zodiac as superstitious beliefs, we are faced with the dilemma that the Magi may not have been wise men at all, but superstitious fools – unless there is an even higher meaning!

            Kepler criticizes the "ridiculous" (Verücktheit) doomsday prophecies of "the astrologers", which he counters with the following "dogma" (Lehrsatz):

"A natural event, like the return of the triangles, is definitely not a sign of something supernatural, except if the will and decision of the one with the power over every supernatural event is added, as it can be seen with the rainbow.  It is a fact, however, that the celestial motions have to be left to nature" (42)

         While Kepler included the ambiguity of the rainbow for the faithful, he continues this "precious item" on the following page much more openly:

"...we have no reason to expect anything from the recent conjunction that makes it more special or significant, because of its natural powers, than anything else in the past two hundred years. It would have nothing to do with a change of the human condition if a triangle is named after fire or water; but there is a great difference whether many or few planets come together and if they are close or far apart".

Kepler's rhetoric implies that the planets may affect the human condition when they are in a close massing, which has probably not been recognized to date. We should remember that  he had dismissed the 800-year cycle of the Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions earlier, that the astrological concept of the Trigons has no meaning, and he dismisses here the triangles of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars as well. For the first time, he emphasizes that it matters how many planets are involved, and how close they are to each other. What he apparently suggested, but couldn't reveal openly, because his life would have been in danger, is an unknown, natural phenomenon that seems to affect the human condition.

               After the "fiery triangle" on February 28, 6 BCE, when the planets disappeared behind the evening Sun, Earth was actually isolated on one side of the Sun, while Mars, Jupiter and Saturn formed a long line behind it that extended to the edge of our Solar System. That this could have had some kind of effect on the human condition can not be explained by modern science, as advanced as it seems to be. But what an astrophysicist would dismiss as a ridiculous concept today could be reversed a decade from now. Wegener's discovery of the "continental drift" was not taken seriously for over half a century, yet it is fully accepted today. Hence, we can afford to speculate what type of astrophysical effect this line-up might have, and a number of possibilities come to mind. Perhaps, it is related to the combined gravity of the three planets that point into the direction of Aries, or when Venus and Mercury are added in April? This line-up might even function like an amplifier or antenna that attracts radiation from the fringe of our galaxy, or from beyond. This gravitational force may also increase the gaseous, Solar tides to tsunamies and subject our planet to unusual jolts of radiation when more of the Sun's inner core is exposed. Or the two phenomena have a combined effect and the Solar activity amplifies the radiation from Outer Space? Consequently, such an unknown, natural  phenomenon could be like a "cosmic clock" that affected the evolution, and Plato's concept of the fullness of time could then be an indication that our distant ancestors were still able to sense this strange force. Although it is a most adventurous interpretation, it gets some support from the Myth of the Phoenix which will be explored below.

10. Appendix

            It is to be expected that our "detective work" will be rejected, especially because of the clout of the above astronomers. But they seem to have looked unanimously at the night sky, searching the heavens – and never noticed Kepler's "miraculous star" down here on Earth. It may surprise them that there is additional support from Christian and Jewish sources that deserve a closer look: For starters, the Reverent A.J. Maas S.J. (43) uses an interesting rhetoric to explain why the literal meaning of the Gospel requires an additional miraculous appearance of a star in the lower region of the atmosphere. In view of Kepler's cautious hints, which Maas seems to have understood, it may have been a decision by the Vatican to give Burke-Gaffney the "green light" to correct Maas and end the controversy once and for all. Because we are grateful for his help, we'll quote Maas anyway, also because he connects Kepler and Plutarch by hinting at the "fullness of time" from Plato's Timaeus, which was studied widely by the clergy in the Middle Ages:

"Kepler observed in December, 1603, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn; Mars acceded in the following spring, and in autumn a very splendid star, much resembling a fixed star, was added. It occurred to the devout astronomer that the Wisemen might have witnessed a similar phenomenon, and on calculation he found that Jupiter and Saturn had been in conjunction A.U.C. 747 (i.e.7 BCE), and that Mars had made his approach the following February and March; later on, the Sun, Venus, and Mercury were added, so that in March, April, and May A.U.C. 748 (i.e.6 BCE) there was a perfect conjunction...  

Kepler did not, however, explain the star of the Magi wholly by means of the conjunction; he thought that the Wisemen, like himself, must have observed a new star in the place of the conjunction which first excited their curiosity, and when it descended into the lower regions of the air and finally disappeared in the west, it recalled Balaam's prophecy, and inspired them with the wish to follow its westward course.”

This appears to be the premise of Burke-Gaffney’s attack of Kepler, because we learn that a very splendid star that appeared in the place of the conjunction and descended into the lower region of the air. According to Maas, it replaced the conjunction, which is in full support of the planetary hexagram. This is how Maas sums it up:

"That a natural star or a comet's tail (Patr.) cannot point out a single house is plain to every observer. To say that the star pointed out the child's presence by its sudden and unexpected appearance, when the Magi were near his place, does not sufficiently satisfy the words of the evangelist... 

Whatever extraordinary natural phenomenon may have occurred... the literal meaning of the gospel and its traditional interpretation require an additional miraculous appearance of a star in the lower region of the atmosphere ."

Thanks to our interpretation of Kepler, it is now plain to every observer that the Shield of David did indeed point out a single house (or child) in Bethlehem, the House of David. Burke-Gaffney kept featuring the supernova so that his seminarians would confuse it with Kepler's esoteric star and, naturally, he avoided to mention the Reverent Maas! That Gentiles like the Magi could have known this symbol is also supported by the Encyclopaedia of Judaism:

"Hexagrams were known in many ancient civilizations as far apart as Britain and

Mesopotamia, India and the Iberian peninsula prior to the Roman conquest".

            Under Magen David, the encyclopedia links it also to early Judeo-Christian magic and holds that the term shield points to an astrological and mythical connection. It even mentions a frieze at the Synagogue of Capernaum where a hexagram is depicted next to a swastika, the ancient sun-wheel, which is exactly what happened and confirms our findings.  

This takes us back to Prague, where the German scholar David Gans seems to have been the first to use the Magen David on a gravestone – his own! This decision may relate to an event in the winter of 1610, which we had mentioned earlier: when Kepler crossed the famous Charles Bridge – and a snowflake landed on his sleeve and melted before his eyes. He could have been on his way to meet Gans in the Altstadt to discuss the mystery of the planetary hexagram over a Pilsner beer. Inspired by the link of the macrocosm and the microcosm they wondered what force or "agent" could determine that every snowflake has six corners? Did the melting of this little star remind them of Wolfram's "three drops of blood" that melt the snow, and did they connect this allegory to the fusion of the triangles in the sky and the phoenix? Or both? Kepler wrote the treatise De nive sexangula in 1611 (44) and dedicated it as a "gift of nothing" to a friend. Did Gans and Kepler discuss that the prophet Elijah was born again 864 years later as John the Baptist, as Jesus suggested, or merely the astrophysical consequences of the regular line-ups of our Solar system? That information was channeled from outer space or just an increase of Solar radiation, both of which could have affected the evolution? There is no way of knowing, of course, where such a conversation might have gone if they had more than one beer! They could have even joined a traditional "Stammtisch" with other participants, like Valentin Andreae, visiting from Tübingen? All we know is that David Gans was a friend of Kepler, and that he died soon thereafter, in 1612. Although the esoteric symbolism of the hexagram was known in Cabbalist circles, Gans was an astronomer and a historian, and probably the first Jew in history to use it in public as a Jewish symbol, which tends to support their imagined conversation.

            It is part of our quest to explore new ideas, as shown above, and we must point out that the earliest depiction of a "Star of David" may be in this ancient image of an Israelite: The two details are from the Black Obelisk at the British Museum. In the center is King Jehu (2 Kings 9:1-10, 33) in a crouching position to pay tribute to King Shalmaneser III of Assyria (859-824 BCE). The bas-relief on black limestone is from Nimrud, in northern Iraq, where it was erected in 825 as a public monument. The exaggerated submission of an Israeli king may be wrongly identified in archeology, because the other crouching man above him is allegedly Sua of Gilzanu a king from Persia. A closer examination reveals that both wear identical caps, clothes and belts, suggesting that it could be the one and same Assyrian court interpreter – and that Jehu is standing behind him, holding a staff with the star. Archeologists seem to believe that is was customary to depict all Assyrian rulers as Sargon the Great and submissive kings like a cartoon character. But that's doubtful, because Jehu's submission was largely symbolic! According to the Bible, King Jehu was not only anointed by the prophet Elisah, but also went on a rampage to kill the descendants of king Ahab. (How Christian children are taught this ghastly tale in Bible class might explain the popularity of the Brothers Grimm, and the grim state of world affairs as a whole!) 

            There is additional evidence for Kepler's star that could erase the remaining doubts of skeptical scholars: The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, an adaptation of Jüdisches Lexikon (45) proposes that as a Messianic symbol, the hexagram:

"...represents the zodiacal sign of Pisces (February 21 to March 20),

the time of the year when the Messiah was supposed to appear".

This covers precisely the time when the planetary hexagram was at the horizon (Feb. 28) – before the sun joined the planets and made them invisible, "burned" them with its light. However, we have merely reconciled the Christian gospels with Kepler's discovery, and a critical scholar could argue that the first Christians were so inspired that they embellished everything to proselytize with greater success. The birth of Jesus, during the reign of Herod, became midrash and was dramatized to involve the evil king personally. The murder of the children could have been used to expose Old Testament brutality, where Elisah murders 450 prophets of Baal, as an evil deed that was not tolerated by the new religion, which teaches love and forgiveness. Christ's resurrection could have been developed from Eastern belief's in reincarnation to establish the divinity of Christ. The matching symbolism of Matthew and Luke, with the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi opposed by an angel and his "heavenly host", may have had the function to offer an astrological concept for educated people – and a fairy tale for children and the general public.

            But aside from these adventurous conjectures, one undisputable fact remains: virtually nothing is known about the Magi and their astrology, but there were definitely planetary triangles in the sky at around the time of Christ's birth. Kepler's veiled comments about the Star of Bethlehem refer not only to the prophecy of Balaam in every detail, but also to the most famous myth of the ancient world. If the planetary hexagram can be identified as the Phoenix, it would fuse all ancient wisdom with Kepler's "cometary star". That this may be his greatest discovery, which he could not address openly, is suggested by De nive sexangula (the microcosm) and his references to Plutarch's de defectu oraculorum (the macrocosm).

            Consequently, Kepler could not reveal openly that the Star of Bethlehem was merely another appearance of the Phoenix, because he would have been unable to save his mother "from certain death at the stake" and might have perished the same way.

11. Christmas Star and Phoenix

           Kepler had the courage, however, to reference a work about the lifespan of the phoenix, and it takes little imagination to interpret the hexagram in perspective over Bethlehem as a bird with a beak and tail, two feet, and its wings spread wide. According to Herodotus, the colors of the phoenix are red and golden, which are the right colors, including the red planet Mars. It flies from the East to the West, which happens to be the course of the planets as seen from Earth, and it allegedly appears about every 500 years, which is a somewhat astronomical number. This is persuasive evidence that the Magi followed the flight of the phoenix, but only if we can show that it is a recurring event. In this case, the phoenix was interpreted by Matthew as a "miraculous star", and the Magi travelled in the direction of modern Cairo in Egypt, towards Heliopolis (Greek: λιούπολις, "City of the Sun"), until they arrived in Jerusalem and learned about Bethlehem, which is only five miles away.

            Plutarch (ca. 46-120 CE) was an erudite scholar, a priest at the Oracle of Delphi, and a contemporary of the anonymous writer of Matthew's Gospel. His account of the Phoenix (46) would make the story of the Magi less unique from a Christian point of view, but it connects it to the great mysteries of Antiquity. If the Myth of the Phoenix is based on an unrecognized, natural phenomenon, it may have been celebrated in the diverse cultures under different names, including Balaam's Star, Seal of David and Holy Grail, because the poet Wolfram described the grail as a stone from paradise that gives the Phoenix the power of rebirth! It also relates to the fullness of time, according to Plato's Timaeus, and to the predictions of Berossus of Babylon, as first suggested in 1986 by W. v. Chmielewski (47). Yes, these are heretical ideas that used to guarantee a fiery death at the stake! You are herewith challenged to post your support or critique a.s.a.p. Write to info@grailgate.com – or start your own blog, with due credits and links to this site. But if you remain unconvinced or need more information, click on NEXT for Plutarch's entertaining concept of the Lifespan of the Phoenix!

BACK LIBRARY NEXT

         NOTES

         1. Holy Bible, New International Version, (New York, 1978).

2. Johannes Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum, De Stella Nova, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 1, ed. Max Caspar, (Munich, 1938), pp.441-61. Here's more of Caspar's German text: "Zwar ist dort unmittelbar vom Todesjahr Christi die Rede, nicht vom Geburtsjahr, dem Sinne nach könnte das letztere aber ebensogut, vielleicht noch mit stärkeren Gründen an Stelle des anderen stehen. Es heisst also da: Mit drei Argumenten wird offen operiert... Ein viertes, das den Menschen Mund und Augen verschliesset, steht dunkel im Hintergrund: die Autorität der heutigen Theologen bei allen Parteien. Diese ist so erdrückend, dass ich nicht umhin kann, dieses Zeitalter als unglücklich zu beklagen.” Although Kepler mentions this in a letter during a lengthy and detailed explanation of De vero anno, it could be regarded as an esoteric reference because he compares the physical "New Star" with its metaphysical nature, and finally dismisses the 1. astrologers, 2. physicists, 3. philosophers, and questions 4. the theologians in favor of a natural explanation of the supernova. The above letter in Latin is currently available on-line at Gallica (BnF), Joannis Kepleri, Opera Omnia, vol. IV, ed. Dr. Ch. Frisch, (Frankfurt, 1762), p. 435, beginning with: "Tria quidem sunt, quae objiiciuntur aperte...:"

         3. Max Caspar, Kepler, tr. C. Doris Hellman, (New York, 1993), preface, p. 14.

         4. Ibid., introduction by Owen Gingerich, p. 3.

5. K. Ferrari d'Occhieppo, Der Stern von Bethlehem in astronomischer Sicht, Legende oder Tatsache? (Giessen, 1994),  p. 147:  Kepler "meinte jedoch, als Stern der Magier eine (hypothetische ) nova im Jahre 5 v. Chr. annehmen zu müssen."  The book is the revised edition of Ferrari's Der Stern der Weisen, (Vienna-Munich, 1969).

         6. David Hughes, The Star Of Bethlehem, An Astronomer's Confirmation, Pocket Book (New York, 1980), p. 134:  "It is possible that in Kepler's view the conjunction had caused the development of the nova and it is even possible that he had thought the conjunction at the time of Christ's birth caused the nova of 5 BC."

7. K. Ferrari d'Occhieppo, Hypothese zu einer 854-jährigen Planetenperiode in der Babylonischen Astronomie, (Vienna, 1969). His concept is developed from several Babylonian cuneiform tablets, which in 7-6 BCE localized the planets repeatedly in Pisces.

         8. Ferrari, (see above, no. 5), p.7

         9. Kepler, (see above, no. 2) p. 401.

        10.  "Als es auch in meinem Buch die gelegenheit gegeben / das ich disen Newen Stern des 1604. Jahres mit dem jenigen Newen Stern / welcher vor 1600. Jahren denn weisen auss Morgenlandt / den Newgebornen König der Juden / unsern Herrn und Heyland Jesum Christum geoffenbahret / vergleichen unnd conferiren müssen / und ich desshalben einen anhang an mein Buch gemacht / mit dem Titulo, de vero anno Natalitio Christ, darinnen ich behauptet / das unsere jahrzahl zu kurtz / und Christus fünff jahr eher geborn / und derowegen der Stern / welcher ein jahr oder zwey zuvor geleuchtet / gleichs fahls mit / unter und neben einer Conjunctione maxima Saturni, Iovis und Martis in dem zeichen Fisch und Wider / und also auch zu eingang des fewrigen Trianguls erschienen, derowegen beyde Sterne einander zu vergleichen seyen... "

        11. Johannes Kepler, Über den neuen Stern im Fuss des Schlangenträger, tr. Otto & Eva Schönberger, Eberhard Knobloch,  (Würzburg, 2006), pp. 156/7: "Da Gott diese zum Herrn Christus hinführen wollte, ermahnte er sie durch das Entflammen eines Sternes. Und beinahe alle Umstände weisen darauf hin, das die Aufgabe jenes Sternes ganz ähnlich der des modernen war, wenn man die Unbeweglichkeit und Höhe unseres Sternes wegdenkt, nämlich dass auch dieser selbst in den Moment der zurückkehrenden Feurigen Dreiheit und in die Zeit der Konjunktion fiel". [279]

        12. Hughes, (see above, no. 6), p. 134.

        13. Michael R. Molnar, The Star of Bethlehem, The Legacy of the Magi, (New Brunswick, 1999), p. 147. Molnar's evaluation of Kepler is strongly influenced by the astronomer Burke-Gaffney, a Jesuit with a hostile agenda (see below, no. 19). According to Molnar: "Burke-Gaffnet (sic),.. is a fountain of information on Kepler's work involving the Magi's star."   

        14. Ibid., p. 23.

        15. Kepler, (see above, no. 2), Gründtlicher Bericht Von einem vngewohnlichen Newen Stern, pp. 393-99: 

"Was nun sein bedeuttung sein werd / ist schwärlich zu ergründen/ vnd ditz allein gewiß / das er eintweder vns Menschen gar nichts / oder aber solliche hohe wüchtige ding zubedeuten habe / die aller Menschen Sinn vnd vernunfft vbertreffen. Dan weil er so hoch vber alle Planeten gestanden / das an demselben ort/ nach Copernici lehr / nit allein der Planeten Cörper verschwinden / sondern auch jre gantze Himmele selber wie kleine sternlin anzusehen: so vermag man demnach aus der Astrologorum gmeinen lehr vnd dieser grossen conjunctione Saturni, Jovis et Martis nichts auff die entzündung dieses sterns / oder seine substantz erzwingen. Vnd wolte Gott / das doch die jenige / wölliche vnzweiffel in grosser anzahl viel langer gewäsche von vrsprung dieses sternen machen / vnd in truckh geben werden / jnen dieweil nämen / Hern Tychonis Brahe Progymnasmata von dem sterne des 1572 Jahrs zuvor abzulesen / damit sie mit so vngeschickten kindischen gedancken / als solte dieser sterne natürlicher gewohnlicher weise von Jove vnd Marte (sonderlich weil er rötlich vnd von fernem / wie ein auffgehende brunst oder feur scheinet) entzündet worden sein / daheimen bleiben."

Rough translation: "What (the supernova) might signify is difficult to find out, only this is certain, it either means nothing for humanity, or such highly, meaningful things that it exceeds our comprehension. Because it stood so high above all planets, at the same location from where, according to Copernicus, not only our planets are invisible, but our entire sky would look like a little star. Therefore, we cannot use the teachings of Astrology to connect the great conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars to the exploding star or its substance. It would please God if those who write in great numbers such lengthy nonsense about the origins of this star and get it printed, were to first read Tycho Brahe's Progymnasms about the earlier star of 1572, so they would keep their inept, childish thoughts to themselves that the star might have been ignited naturally by Jupiter and Mars, (because it is reddish and looks from the distance like rising flames or fire), and better stay at home..."

        16. Kepler, (see above, no. 11), p. 159: "Oder hält es jemand für wahrscheinlich, dass eine Mücke einen Elefanten hervorbringt?"

        17. A.J. Maas, S.J., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew with an explanatory and critical commentary, , 2nd. ed., (St Louis, 1916), p. 20. (See our appendix for a few quotes).

        18. Science News Letter, December 19, (Washington, 1936), p. 393 

        19. M.W. Burke-Gaffney, Kepler and the Star of Bethlehem, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (Toronto, 1937), pp. 416-425.

        20. Carola Baumgardt, Johannes Kepler - Life and Letters, (New York, 1951), pp. 9-13

21. John Mosley, Common Errors in "Star of Bethlehem" Planetarium Shows, the Planetarian, Third Quarter,  (Los Angeles, 1981), also available on-line. See 7., last accessed June, 2011. Note: It must be said that Mosley was extremely supportive of our queries in the 1980s, although he supported Burke-Gaffney and also held that Kepler confused the Star of Bethlehem with a nova in 6 BCE. According to Mosley: "The massing was clearly visible. Mars and Saturn were in conjunction on February 20, 6 B.C. when the longitudes of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the sun were 351.2, 358.6, 352.0, and 329.8 degrees respectively as interpolated from Tuckerman's Planetary, Lunar, and Solar Positions. (Mars and Saturn were at equal longitude 12 hours later but had set by then; the numbers given here are for 7:00 p.m., Babylon time.) The sun was 21 degrees west of the westernmost two planets and 29 degrees west of Jupiter. All three planets were still visible above the horizon after the end of evening twilight. Robert Victor of Abrams Planetarium clearly saw the Mars-Saturn conjunction of February 20, 1966, even though these planets were much closer to the sun than in 6 B.C. and were observed from a higher latitude than the Near East."

        22. Kepler, (see above, no. 2), IV, TERTIVS INTERVENIENS. Das ist/ Warnung an etliche Theologos, Medicos und Philosophos..., chap. VIII, 1610, pp. 161/2. The quote has been translated by Hellman (see above, no. 3), p. 183, but she misinterpreted Kepler's "Perlin oder Goldtkorn" as other "pearly or golden corn" the busy hen could find, because Caspar omitted the continuation of this statement. Without the reference, Hellman had no idea that Kepler went on to say that he put some of these "precious pearls and gold" into his book De stella nova. That Caspar didn't include this important message is a strong indication that he failed to understand Kepler's entertaining metaphor! Another example of Kepler's sense of humor is the cover page, where he warns the above experts not to "cheaply dismiss the stargazer's superstitions and pour out the child with the bath water, and therefore act unknowingly against their profession." He goes on to promise "many, extremely important, never before raised or discussed philosophical questions for all true lovers of the secrets of nature as a necessary instruction."

        23. Carola Baumgardt (see above, no. 20).

        24. Max Caspar, Johannes Kepler, (Stuttgart, 1950), p. 240

        25. Ibid., p. 257

        26. Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. IV, Nachbericht, (Munich, 1941), p. 429

        27. M.W. Burke-Gaffney, Kepler and the Jesuits, (Milwaukee, 1944), p. 37

        28. Johannes Kepler, L'Etoile nouvelle dans le pied de Serpentaire, tr. Jean Peyroux, (Bordeaux, 1998)

        29. Kepler, (see above, n. 10), partially available on-line at Google! Note: The translations of astrological terms may be flawed. For example, Mercury is identified as Mars on the book's cover and Trigon is usually translated as "Dreiheit".  

        30. Ludwig Günther, Kepler und die Theologie, Ein Stück Religions- und Sittengeschichte aus dem XVI. und XVII. Jahrhundert, (Giessen, 1905), p.VI.

        31. Kepler, (see above, no. 12), pp. 236/7. It is difficult to understand why the German translators moved some of Kepler's lines! According to Joannis Kepleri, Opera Omnia, vol. II, ed. Dr. Ch. Frisch, p. 746, which can be googled, Kepler's reference to the celebrated rabbi Joseph Albo in a footnote became a bracketed headline. The culprit is probably not Caspar, whom the translators followed, because he would have corrected the typo Alba. Kepler may have reversed the alpha and omega in geste to claim that Albo's Sefer ha-Ikkarim, "Book of Principles", led many to the Arianism of the Visigoths, which denied the divinity of Christ like Islam. Hence, the experts are challenged to untangle the metaphor of the two Josephs from Spain, the Jewish philosopher and rabbi Joseph Albo (c. 1380–1444) and the Jesuit missionary and theologian José de Acosta (1539–1600), which seems to imply a symbolic kick of the serpentholder's foot as a reference to the famous disputation at Tortosa in 1413, where Albo played a leading role in the Jewish victory over Benedict XIII.

        32. Caspar, (see above, no. 3), Introduction, pp.24-27.

        33. Kepler, (See above, n. 12), p. 233-37. The terminology is extremely anti-Semitic (p.225) and typical for the period, but Kepler goes on to praise the holy Church to add that the "highest and greatest God" gave the Jews priority over the Church and reversed for them the order of nature and stopped the Sun .... only to help Joshua, the leader of the Israelite peoples, etc. Kepler's satire about the stopping Sun ends with the apocalyptic Antichrist as partially mentioned above, in no. 30.

        34. Caspar, (see above, no. 3),  p. 155

        35. Kepler, (see above, no. 11), p. 133: “If the material of the fire or body of this star was new, it was either created by God or by some kind of natural force.., I said above that the material of this star did not come from Earth. Its material was therefore from the heavens, if we can attribute the creation of a star (even if it seems monstrous like a worm in the human intestines) to the force of nature. Because nature creates nothing without matter…”  [Wenn also der Stoff dieser Flamme oder der Körper dieses Sternes neu entstand, so muss er entweder von Gott geschaffen oder durch irgendeine Naturkraft erzeugt worden sein… Oben habe ich gesagt, dass der Stoff des Sternes nicht von der Erde stammte. Also wurde sein Stoff vom Himmel genommen, wenn man überhaupt die Enstehung eines Sternes (mag sie auch so monströs sein wie die Entstehung eines Wurmes im menschlichen Unterleib) den Kräften der Natur zuschreiben kann. Denn die Natur erzeugt ohne Materie nichts…], p. 134: “The excellent statement of Brahe was mentioned above, that stars of this kind are created from the Milky Way.” [Hier wurde bereits oben der grossartige Ausspruch von Brahe erwähnt, dass Sterne dieser Art aus der Milchstrasse erzeugt würden…], p. 135: “This is why I rather favor the view that heaven is capable in all its regions to furnish these heavenly bodies with material.” [Daher neige ich eher zu der Ansicht, dass der Himmel an allen seinen Stellen fähig ist, solchen Gestirnen Stoff zu liefern.]  

36. Günther, (see above, no. 30)

        37. Owen Gingerich, God's Universe, (Cambridge, 2006)

        38. Bryant Tuckerman, Planetary, Lunar, and Solar Positions, (Philadelphia, 1962) Tuckerman uses -0 for BCE 1, and  -5 for BCE 6. 

        39. Andrea Dortmann, Winter Facets: Traces and tropes of the cold, Studies in Modern German Literature, Vol. 104. (Bern, 2007), p. 69.

        40. Ferrari, (see above, n. 5)

        41. Herlitz/Kirschner, Jüdisches Lexikon, Vol. III, (Berlin, 1929), p.1282.

        42. Kepler, (see above, n. 2), p. 210-11: "...dass wir keine Ursache haben, wegen der jüngsten Konjunktion etwas Herausragendes oder Bedeutenderes als in den letzten beiden Jahrhunderten durch die Kraft der Natur zu erwarten. Es besagt ja nichts für die Veränderung des menschlichen Zustandes, ob ein Dreieck nach dem Feuer oder dem Wasser benannt wird; doch darin liegt der grosse Unterschied, ob viele oder wenige Planeten und ob diese eng oder locker und entfernt zusammentreten."

        43. Maas, (see above, n. 16)

        44. Kepler, De nive Sexangula, (see above, n. 2), pp. 261-80. For an English text see: Johannes Kepler, The Six-Cornered Snowflake A New Year's Gift, tr. Jacques Bromberg, (Philadelphia, 2010).

45. Jüdisches Lexikon, (see above, no. 41), p.1282.

        46. Plutarch, de defectu oraculorum, Moralia, Vol. XI, (Cambridge, 1927), pp. 381-387

47. Wolfgang von Chmielewski, Hexagrams in the Sky: from the Star of David to the Holy Grail, paper given at Annual Meeting May 2-3, 1986, of Southern California Academy of Sciences at California State University San Bernadino. Abstract No. 60: "According to modern astronomical computations, the relative positions of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, as seen from Earth, changed within ten days from a watery to a fiery triangle in 6 BC and AD 849, at the vernal equinox, followed by a massing in Aries of all planets known to the ancients with the Sun. This transformation symbolizes the fusion of "wise men" into a hexagram, the most ancient symbol of magic. Evidence from the Bible, mythology, philosophy, and literature suggests that planetary hexagrams of this sort appeared in intervals of approximately 854 years, with different meanings in different civilizations, including Balaam's Star, David's Shield, Hesiod's Phoenix, Plato's X, Matthew's Christmas Star, the Philosopher's Stone, and even the Holy Grail."

BACK LIBRARY NEXT

All rights reserved except for brief quotes

Copyright © 1980-2009 by GrailGate