The Star of Bethlehem

and the Magi

Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the
Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and
Modern Astronomy

Edited by

Peter Barthel and George van Kooten

LEIDEN | BOSTON

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

Contents

Prologue xi
Peter Barthel and George van Kooten
List of Figures and Tables xv
List of Contributors xvii
List of Other Attendants XX

Part 1
From Kepler to Molnar—The History of the Interpretation
of the Star

1 Kepler’s De Vero Anno (1614) 3

Owen Gingerich

2 The Historical Basis for the Star of Bethlehem 17

Michael R. Molnar

3 A Critical Look at the History of Interpreting the Star of Bethlehem in

Scientifijic Literature and Biblical Studies 43
Aaron Adair

4 An Astronomical and Historical Evaluation of Molnar’s Solution 85

Bradley E. Schaefer

5 Astronomical Thoughts on the Star of Bethlehem 103

David W. Hughes

6 De Ster der Wijzen (1920): A Forgotten Early Publication about the Star
of Bethlehem 138
Teije de Jong

Part 2
The Star—What, When, and How

7 What, If Anything? 161
Peter Barthel

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

viii contents

8 The Astronomical Resources for Ancient Astral Prognostications 171

Alexander Jones

Part 3
Ancient Near-Eastern Astrology and the Magi

9 Mesopotamian Astrological Geography 201

John M. Steele

10 The Story of the Magi in the Light of Alexander the Great’s

Encounters with Chaldeans 217
Mathieu Ossendrijver

11 Pre-Islamic Iranian Astral Mythology, Astrology, and the Star of

Bethlehem 231
Antonio Panaino

Part 4
Astrology in the Greco-Roman World

12 Matthew’s Magi as Experts on Kingship 271

Albert de Jong

13 Greco-Roman Astrologers, the Magi, and Mithraism 286

Roger Beck

14 The Star of Bethlehem and Greco-Roman Astrology, Especially

Astrological Geography 297
Stephan Heilen

Part 5
Astrology in the Jewish World

15 The World Leader from the Land of the Jews: Josephus, Jewish War
6.300–315; Tacitus, Histories 5.13; and Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5 361
Jan Willem van Henten

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

contents ix

16 Stars and Powers: Astrological Thinking in Imperial Politics from the

Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba 387
Kocku von Stuckrad

17 Balaam’s ‘Star Oracle’ (Num 24:15–19) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Bar
Kokhba 399
Helen R. Jacobus

Part 6
The Early Christian World

18 The Star of the Magi and the Prophecy of Balaam in Earliest

Christianity, with Special Attention to the Lost Books of Balaam 433
Darrell D. Hannah

19 Matthew’s Star, Luke’s Census, Bethlehem, and the Quest for the
Historical Jesus 463
Annette Merz

20 Matthew, the Parthians, and the Magi: A Contextualization of

Matthew’s Gospel in Roman-Parthian Relations of the First Centuries
BCE and CE 496
George van Kooten

Epilogue 647
Peter Barthel and George van Kooten

Indices

1. Index of Modern Authors 655

2. Index of Biblical References 657
2.1 Jewish Scriptures 657
2.2 New Testament Writings 658
3. Index of Ancient Sources 662
3.1 Ancient Near-Eastern Sources 662
3.2 Jewish Sources 662
3.3 Christian Sources 664
3.4 Greco-Roman Pagan Sources 666
3.5 Papyri 672
4. Subject Index 673

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

 Chapter 6

De Ster der Wijzen (1920): A Forgotten Early

Publication about the Star of Bethlehem

Teije de Jong*

Introduction

In 1920 a modest little book of about 140 pages, entitled De Ster der Wijzen (The
Star of the Wise Men), was published by the N. V. Uitgeversmaatschappij Paul
Brand in Bussum, the Netherlands. The book was written by a Dutch catho-
lic priest, Dominicus Sloet, who was at the time pastor in Abcoude, a village
about 12 kilometers southeast of Amsterdam. The book contains an astronomi-
cal interpretation of the Star of Bethlehem based on the concept that the “wise
men from the East” were Mesopotamian astronomers/astrologers who had
reason to look for a “newborn king of the Jews.” This publication is unique in
several respects:

1. It summarizes and partly builds on the work of the German scholars

F. von Oefele,1 H. H. Kritzinger,2 and H. G. Voigt.3 This early research, in
which the Jupiter–Saturn conjunction plays a central role, is almost com-
pletely ignored in the modern (predominantly English) literature of the
Star of Bethlehem.4
2. Contrary to most of his predecessors writing about the star, the author of
this book suggests that the only function of the Jupiter–Saturn conjunc-
tion is to accompany the planet Mars as the herald of the birth of Jesus,

* I would like to express my thanks to Oscar Swijnenberg and Bernhardt Rengert for providing
me with biographical materials, and to Marijke Duyvendak for valuable assistance in provid-
ing copies of old and/or inaccessible publications.
1  “Die Angaben der Berliner Planetentafel P8279 verglichen mit dem Geburtsgeschichte Christi
im Berichte des Matthäus,” Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellshaft 8 no. 2 (1903): 1–45;
“Das Horoskop der Empfängnis Christi mit den Evangelien verglichen,” Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellshaft 8 no. 6 (1903): 1–15.
2  Die Stern der Weisen (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1911).
3  Die Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie (Leipzig: Hinrichse Buchhandlung, 1911).
4  For example, David Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem (New York: Walker, 1979); Michael R.
Molnar, The Star of Bethlehem (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1999).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004308473_007

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV
De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 139

consistent with its representing the king of the Amorites in cuneiform

astrological literature.
3. In the book, the author quotes advice from and correspondence with the
Jesuit priest Franz Xaver Kugler (1868–1929), one of the pioneers of the
study of cuneiform astronomical texts and at the time the world’s expert
on Babylonian astronomy and divination, who lived and worked in
Valkenburg, the Netherlands, from 1894 until his death in 1929.5

In this essay, I will use the work of Sloet as a vehicle to summarize early
research into the astronomical interpretation of the Star of Bethlehem. In
doing so, I hope to convince the reader that his little book deserves to be saved
from oblivion.

The Author

First, it seems appropriate to say a few words about Pastor Sloet, the author
of this remarkable little book. Dominicus Andreas Willem Hendrik Sloet
tot Everlo was born in Denekamp in the Dutch province of Overijssel on
29 October 1855. At the age of 12, he entered the Kleinseminarie in Culemborg,
where he attended the Gymnasium followed by a one-year course in philoso-
phy. Then he moved to the Grootseminarie Rijssenburg in Driebergen, near
Utrecht, for his theological education. He was ordained priest in 1877. After
early posts as chaplain in Oude Pekela (1877–1882), rector in Oldenzaal (1882–
1898), and pastor in Harderwijk (1898–1906), he spent most of his career as
pastor in Abcoude (1906–1936). He died on 27 December 1938 at the advanced
age of 83 in Abcoude–Proostdij.6
Dominicus Sloet, the descendant of an aristocratic family, is said to have
been an unpretentious, devout, slightly autocratic man with a scientifijic tem-
perament and a great interest in religious education. He developed into a bib-
lical scholar of national renown and played an important role in the Catholic
revival in the Netherlands during the fijirst quarter of the twentieth century.7

5  See T. de Jong, “Babylonian Astronomy: 1850–1930” in Otto Neugebauer and Modern

Transformations of the History of Ancient Science (eds. A. Jones, Chr. Proust, and J. M. Steele;
Dordrecht: Springer, 2015), in press.
6  For a short biography in Dutch, see O. Swijnenberg, Utrechtse Biografijieën: van Angstel tot
Kromme Mijdrecht: levensbeschrijvingen van bekende en onbekende mensen uit Abcoude,
Baambrugge en De Ronde Venen (Utrecht: Stichting Publicaties Oud-Utrecht, 2001), 166–71.
7  L. J. Rogier and N. de Rooy, In vrijheid herboren. Katholiek Nederland 1853–1953 (The Hague:
N. V. Uitgeversmij Pax, 1953), 492–585.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

140 de Jong

As a man of science, Sloet became involved in the controversy between

modernism and its counter-movement, integralism, which raged through the
Catholic world during the fijirst decade of the twentieth century. The modern-
istic point of view was most clearly formulated by one of its founding fathers,
George Tyrrell (1861–1909), as “the efffort to fijind a new theological synthesis
consistent with the data of historico–critical research.”8 The way in which this
controversy played out in the Netherlands, and Sloet’s role in it, is described in
detail by J. P. de Valk.9
While open to modern views on historical Bible research, Pastor Sloet was at
the same time a strong defender of the Catholic Church and its institutions. He
was one of the founders (in 1904) and the second chairman of the Apologetische
Vereniging Petrus Canisius, a Dutch association of progressive Catholics who
aimed to defend and propagate the foundations of the Catholic faith outside
its own circle in an intellectual responsible manner. In this spirit, Sloet partici-
pated in a new Catholic translation of the Bible based on the original sources,
and in 1913 he published an essay defending the legitimacy of the pope as the
representative on Earth of Peter, the apostle of Jesus. For these and other simi-
lar contributions and activities, Sloet received an honorary doctorate from the
Theological Faculty of the Belgian University of Leuven in February 1914. He
was also a member of a small group of progressive Catholic intellectuals and

Figure 6.1
Dominicus Andreas Willem Hendrik Sloet tot
Everlo (1855–1938). This photograph served as
the frontispiece of the 7 February 1914 issue
of De Katholieke Illustratie, a popular and
influential catholic periodical that appeared
in the Netherlands between 1867 and 1967.
The caption of the photograph mentioned the
honorary doctorate that had recently been
granted to Sloet by the Theological Faculty of
the University of Leuven.

8  M. D. Petre, Autobiography and Life of George Tyrrell vol. II, Life of George Tyrrell 1884–1909
(London: Edward Arnold, 1912), 356.
9  Roomser dan de Paus? Studies over de betrekkingen tussen de Heilige Stoel en het Nederlands
katholicisme, 1815–1940 (Nijmegen: Uitgeverij Valkhof Pers, Nijmegen, 1998), 235–267.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 141

politicians, who called themselves de Klarenbeekse Club, that served as a kind of

Catholic think-tank during the fijirst decade of the twentieth century.10 One of
the more prominent members of this group was jhr. mr. Charles J. M. Ruijs de
Beerenbrouck (1873–1936), who would become the fijirst Catholic prime min-
ister of the Netherlands (1918–1925 and 1929–1933). It is in the light of Sloet’s
apologetic attitude that one should view his study De Ster der Wijzen, which
was published in 1920.

From Kepler (Seventeenth Century) to Ideler (Nineteenth Century)

All work on the astronomical interpretation of the star seen by the magi in
Matthew 2 goes back to Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who, in his De stella nova
in pede Serpentarii (1606), was the fijirst to propose that the star might be associ-
ated with the triple conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BCE in
Pisces/Aries.11 According to the well–known German chronologist Christian
Ludwig Ideler (1766–1846), who used Kepler’s idea in his calibration of the zero
point of the Christian era,12 it was his compatriot, the theologian and church
historian Friedrich Münter (1761–1830), who should be credited with remind-
ing the learned world of Kepler’s suggestion, which had been completely for-
gotten by the early nineteenth century. In a publication from 1821, Münter
discussed a Hebrew commentary on the biblical book of Daniel (Ma’yanei ha-
Yeshu’ah or Sources of Salvation from 1496) by the Portuguese Jewish scholar
Isaac Abravanel (1437–1508), in which the author quotes the ancient astrologi-
cal doctrine that the history of the world is regulated by successive conjunc-
tions of the planets Jupiter and Saturn. According to this theory, the coming
of the Messiah is expected to occur around the time that a conjunction of
these two planets occurs in the sign of Pisces, exactly as Kepler had calculated
for the conjunction in 7 BCE. Abravanel prophesies that the conjunction of
Jupiter and Saturn of April 1464 in Pisces may be a portent of the coming of
the Messiah, who will bring salvation and will resolve the problems of the
Jews on the Iberian Peninsula, who were sufffering from severe persecution in
those days.

10  Rogier and de Rooy, In vrijheid herboren, 492–502.

11  See the chapter by Owen Gingerich in this volume.
12  Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie II (Berlin: August
Rücker, 1826), 399–411; Lehrbuch der Chronologie (Berlin: August Rücker, 1831), 424–31.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

142 de Jong

The origin of this ancient doctrine of astrological history has been traced
back by D. Pingree13 to a lost manuscript of the Persian Jewish astrologer
Māshā’allāh Ibn Athari (ca. 640–815) from the city of Basra on the Persian Gulf.
According to this doctrine, history is the unfolding of the influences of periodi-
cally recurring Saturn–Jupiter conjunctions. To explain the astrological prin-
ciple involved, I quote Pingree:

A Saturn–Jupiter conjunction takes place about every 20 years; a series

will occur in the signs of one triplicity14 for about 240 years, that is twelve
conjunctions; and they will have passed through the four triplicities and
begin the cycle again after about 960 years. When they shift from one tri-
plicity to another, they indicate events on the order of dynastic changes.
The completion of a cycle of 960 years, which is mixed up with various
millennial theories, causes revolutionary events such as the appearance
of a major prophet. The ordinary course of politics is dependent on the
horoscopes of the vernal equinoxes for the years in which the minor con-
junctions within a triplicity take place.15

It is attractive to speculate that this doctrine may have been known to the
magi around the beginning of our era, but Pingree presumes that it is an
astrological innovation dating from the Sasanian period (224–651 CE).16 Not
aware of its origin, Ideler—and most of his nineteenth- and twentieth-century
successors—take it that this doctrine may have been an essential element in
the motivation of the magi to start their trip to Jerusalem in search of a new-
born king of the Jews.
Ideler also presents new calculations of the dates and the ecliptic coordi-
nates of the 7 BCE triple conjunction based on the best-known orbital ele-
ments of his time, resulting in 29 May, 30 September, and 5 December 7 BCE.17
His calculations were improved by Pritchard, who pointed out that the sepa-
ration between the planets was of order 1° (two times the lunar diameter) at

13  “Astronomy and Astrology in India and Iran,” Isis 54 (1963): 229–46; see also E. S. Kennedy
and D. Pingree, The Astrological History of Māshā’allāh (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1971).
14  A triplicity consists of three signs of the Zodiac 120° apart. The Water triplicity consists of
the signs of Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces; the Fire triplicity of Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius;
and so on for the Air and Earth triplicities.
15  Pingree, “Astronomy and Astrology,” 245.
16  Pingree, “Astronomy and Astrology,” 245–46. See also the chapter by Antonio Panaino in
this volume.
17  Ideler, Lehrbuch der Chronologie (Berlin: August Rücker, 1831), 429.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 143

all three conjunctions so that they were seen separately and not as one single
bright star.18

Felix von Oefele (1861–1955)

It took until the beginning of the twentieth century before the conjunction
hypothesis reappeared in the scientifijic arena. In 1903, the German medical
historian Felix von Oefele19 published a paper on the demotic papyrus Berlin
P 8279, which he had encountered in search of manuscripts on astrological
medicine in the collection of the Berlin Museum. P 8279 contained predictions
of the planetary positions of Jupiter and Saturn computed20 for the regnal
years 14 to 41 of Augustus (17 BCE–11 CE). In his paper, von Oefele concludes
that the astronomical knowledge in those days was apparently sufffijiciently
developed that magi (astrologers) from Mesopotamia could have predicted
the 7 BCE conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces and, based on those
predictions, could have embarked on a trip to Jerusalem to pay tribute to the
newborn king whose birth was announced by that conjunction. Von Oefele
identifijies 15 April 6 BCE (Julian calendar) as the day on which the Jupiter–
Saturn conjunction rose heliacally.21 He suggests that this is the observation
to which the magi refer in Matt 2:2 and that it marks the moment of Mary’s
conception. Jesus must then have been born around 1 January 5 BCE, a date
which, according to von Oefele is consistent with the historical facts of the
biblical story. In a sequential paper published in the same year, von Oefele uses

18  C. Pritchard, “On the Conjunctions of the Planets Jupiter and Saturn in the Years BC 7, BC 66
and AD 54”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Vol. XVI (1856): 215–216.
19  von Oefele, “Die Angaben der Berliner Planetentafel P8279.” For a short biography of Felix
Freiherr von Oefele, see H. Goerke, “Felix Freiher von Oefele,” Neue Deutsche Biographie
19 (1999): 428.
20  This kind of table was an essential piece of equipment for the Hellenistic astrologer.
P 8279 contains sign entry dates in the Egyptian calendar of all fijive planets for the years
14 to 41 of Augustus (17 BCE–10 CE). The text has been reedited by O. Neugebauer
(“Egyptian Planetary Texts,” Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., New Series 32 [1942]: 210–50). It was
demonstrated by B. L. van der Waerden (“Egyptian ‘Eternal Tables’ I,” Proceedings of the
Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet. 50 [1947]: 536–47) that many of these Egyptian astronomical tables
were computed using methods of Babylonian origin.
21  This date difffers by only two days from 17 April 6 BCE, the date of the heliacal rising of
Jupiter and the day that the magi “saw his star in the East,” according to Molnar (The Star
of Bethlehem, 89). It is remarkable that almost 100 years earlier, von Oefele had already
reached exactly the same conclusion.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

144 de Jong

contemporary astrological doctrines (taken from the Handbuch der Astrologie

by Ernst Mayer22) to show that 15 April 6 BCE, his date for the heliacal rising of
the Jupiter–Saturn conjunction, is astrologically a plausible date for the con-
ception horoscope of Jesus.23
Not surprisingly, von Oefele’s work led to a flurry of papers—pro and
contra—in the literature, not least due to the somewhat unprofessional way
in which the astrological context of the conjunction theory was treated. This
polemic exchange will not be discussed here, but I will have opportunity to
briefly come back to it, since it is addressed in the work of Kritzinger and Voigt,
to be discussed below.
The problem of the astronomical origin of the Star of Bethlehem gained
renewed actuality in the years preceding 1910 because in April of that year the
reappearance of Halley’s Comet was expected. This comet had been shown
by the British astronomer Edmund Halley (1656–1742) to be periodic; its most
famous earlier appearance was in 1066, at the time of the Battle of Hastings,
which led to the conquest of England by William, Duke of Normandy.24 Halley
noted that the comet must also have appeared around 12 BCE and that it there-
fore might be a serious contender for being identifijied as the Star of Bethlehem.

Hans Hermann Kritzinger (1887–1968)

I now turn to the work of the German astronomer Hans-Hermann Kritzinger,25

who in 1911, at the age of 24, published a little book entitled Der Stern der
Weisen in which he again takes up the idea of the Jupiter–Saturn conjunc-
tion as a candidate for the Star of Bethlehem and forcefully argues in its favor.
Many of the issues and problems associated with the conjunction theory
are already addressed in this little book. It is surprising and somewhat care-
less that modern research into the Star of Bethlehem, including the work of
Hughes and Molnar (see note 4 above), completely ignores Kritzinger’s work.26

22  Berlin: Decker, 1901.

23  Von Oefele, “Das Horoskop der Empfängnis Christi.”
24  This appearance of Halley’s Comet is depicted in one of the scenes on the famous Bayeux
Tapestry, which gives a pictorial account of the events leading up the conquest of England
in 1066 by William, Duke of Normandy.
25  For a short biography of Kritzinger and his work as astronomer, occultist, and ballistics
expert, see B. Rengert, “Pfarresohn, Astronom und Astrologe. Geboren in Boitzenburg:
Hans-Hermann Kitzinger,” Uckermark Kurier 146 (26 June 2006): 27.
26  The German-speaking author K. Ferrari d’Ochieppo lists Kritzinger’s book in the bibli-
ography of the 2nd edition of his book, Der Stern der Weisen. Geschichte oder Legende?
(Vienna: Verlag Herold, 1977).

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 145

Sloet’s 1920 publication, which provided my main motivation for writing this
essay, makes extensive use of Kritzinger’s results.
Picking up the actuality in the fijirst chapter of his book, Kritzinger points
out that a comet is not a good candidate for the star in Matthew’s narrative
because traditionally comets are supposed to be bad rather than good omens.
To illustrate this, he refers to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who took
the reappearance of Halley’s Comet in 66 CE as a portent of the destruction of
Jerusalem, which occurred shortly afterwards.27
Kritzinger then mentions another journey of magi documented by the
Roman author Plinius the Elder (in his Historia Naturalis 30.16), who reports
that in 66 CE, the Parthian prince Tiridates (a magus himself), accompanied
by a group of magi, traveled to Rome to be established by Emperor Nero on
the throne of Armenia. During this trip a striking conjunction between Mars
and Jupiter in Aries (separation ~15 arc minutes) took place in the night of
23/24 June 66 CE, the date of the summer solstice. Kritzinger refers to this as
an argument in favor of magi establishing the kingship of Jesus. The general
expectation of the coming of a new era that prevailed in those days is, accord-
ing to Kritzinger, related to the entering of the Vernal Point in Pisces. He notes
that, according to Kugler,28 the Babylonians were not aware of the precession
of the equinoxes. Nevertheless, he suggests that the passage of the Vernal Point
from Aries to Pisces may have played an important role in the considerations
of the magi.
In chapter two of his book, Kritzinger discusses the introduction of the
Christian year count by Dionysius Exiguus and the use of the astronomical
and civil calendars and conversions between them. Then, in chapter three, he
discusses diffferent hypotheses that have been put forward to explain the star.
Of the work done since Kepler, he mentions that of the astronomers Ideler
and Pritchard (see above) and of the Jesuit Hontheim,29 who all discuss the
triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, giving diffferent but increasingly more
accurate dates for the conjunction. Then he critically discusses the work of
von Oefele, who, according to Kritzinger, has not properly read and misquotes
Kepler’s publications on the star. He also shows that von Oefele makes several
mistakes in his calculations of lunar and planetary positions. He ends his criti-
cal review of von Oefele’s work with an analysis of the astronomy of papyrus
P 8279. He notes that the sign entry dates of all the planets are too late, corre-
sponding to longitudes that are too large by several degrees. He suggests that

27  See Flavius Josephus, De Bello Iudaico, Ch. 5.3 ( = 6.289–290).

28  F. X. Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndeuting in Babel (vol. 1, part 1; Münster, 1909), 32.
29  J. Hontheim, “Die Konjunktion des Jupiter und Saturn im Jahre 7 v. Chr,” Der Katholik 88
(1908): 187–95.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

146 de Jong

this may be explained if the computations in the papyrus follow a Babylonian

tradition, in which the zero point of the Babylonian zodiac does not coincide
with the Vernal Point. This early suggestion was beautifully confijirmed more
than 30 years later by the work of Neugebauer30 and van der Waerden,31 who
show that the data are computed for a sidereal zodiac shifted by about 5° with
respect to the tropical zodiac, and that the text was written after 42 CE.32
In chapter four, Kritzinger quotes the Portuguese Rabbi Abarbanel (1437–
1508), who published a work in which he treated the history of the world in
terms of periods between conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in diffferent signs
of the zodiac (see above). Kepler was aware of this system and used a variant
of it in his discussion of the conjunction. In chapter fijive, Kritzinger illustrates
Abarbanel’s theory for a number of historic cases (Moses, Alexander the Great,
and Mohammed). He computes positions of the planets for diffferent epochs
using the Tables of P. V. Neugebauer,33 based on modern planetary theory, and
compares those with the results of previous authors.
In chapter six, Kritzinger presents the text of Matthew 2 with his commen-
tary. He notes a fijirst difffijiculty in the Greek text of Matt 2:2 associated with
the phrase αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα, because ἀστὴρ means star and not group of two
stars. According to him, this difffijiculty may be resolved by realizing that the
meanings of the Greek words ἀστὴρ (star) and ἀστρὸν (stellar constellation)
partly overlap, as in the German Stern und Gestirn. He then points to a strong
argument in favor of interpreting the star as the conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn when in Matt 2:10 the magi express their joy at seeing the conjunction
again (for the third time), which confijirms that it is indeed a Great or Triple
Conjunction.
That planetary conjunctions were indeed of special importance to
Babylonian astronomers is confijirmed by Prof. Kugler in a letter to Kritzinger.
In the text, Strassmaier Cambyses 400,34 a similar set of observations of con-
junctions between (Venus,) Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, are recorded in the
autumn of 523 BCE, this time in the constellation Virgo, near to the bright star

30  Neugebauer, “Egyptian Plantary Texts.”

31  Van der Waerden, “Egyptian ‘Eternal Tables’ I.”
32  See also O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy (3 vols.; Berlin:
Springer, 1975), 786–87.
33  P. V. Neugebauer, “Abgekürtzte Tafeln der Sonne und der grossen Planeten,”
Veröfffentichungen des königliches Astronomisches Recheninstitut zu Berlin 25 (1904); see
also Neugebauer, “Abgekürtzte Tafeln des Mondes,” Veröfffentichungen des königliches
Astronomisches Recheninstitut zu Berlin 27 (1905).
34  Kugler, “Ein rätselvolle astronomische Keilinschrift (Strm. Kambys. 400),” Zeitschrift fur
Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 17 (1903): 203.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 147

Spica (α Virginis).35 Kugler writes, “That was indeed a magnifijicent and at the
same time rare phenomenon.”36 Kritzinger states that the conjunctions in
7 BCE took place close to the star ς Piscium,37 the star that marks the zero point
of the Babylonian zodiac. He constructs a diagram illustrating the separation
in longitude between Saturn and Jupiter. The dates for the three conjunctions
are: 28 May, 3 October, and 4 December 7 BCE.
He then notes a second difffijiculty in the text of Matt 2:2: the Greek term ἐν τῇ
ἀνατολῇ should be translated as “in its (heliacal) rising” rather than as “in the
East.” Kritzinger computes that the heliacal rising of Jupiter falls on 21 March
7 BCE, and of Saturn on 2 April 7 BCE. The planet Mercury (26 March by Jupiter,
31 March by Saturn) and the Moon (28 March by Jupiter) also pass by.
On 10 March 7 BCE, the planet Mars is in opposition with the Sun and is
then the brightest object in the sky38 during the night, with a visible magni-
tude of −1.5 (equaling Sirius in brightness until its setting at about 23:30 hours).
Kritzinger quotes the Babylonian omen text: “When a planet surpasses the
stars of the sky in brightness, a king will destroy the land. Mars has become
bright and has outshone the stars.”39 He notes that in Babylonian omen texts,
Mars astrologically represents the king of the Amurru (Amorites), occupying
the Westland. This explains why the magi went to Jerusalem (the capital of the
Westland). Kritzinger computes that on 25 March 7 BCE, Mars occulted the star
γ Virginis, the fertility star at the base of the ear of wheat in the constellation

35  For a modern edition of this text, see H. Hunger, A. J. Sachs, and J. M. Steele, Astronomical
Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Vol. V: Lunar and Planetary Texts. (Vienna: Verlag
der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001), nr. 55. The text was discussed
in detail by J. P. Britton, “Remarks on Strassmaier Cambyses 400,” in From the Banks of
the Euphrates: Studies in Honor of Alice Louise Slotsky (ed. Micah Ross; Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2007), 8–34.
36  Kugler (“Ein rätselvolle astronomische Keilinschrift,” 233); Kugler also notes that the pre-
served text of Strassmaier Cambyses 400 must be a much later copy of the original from
523 BCE. He adds that the exceptionality of the conjunctions in the fall of 523 BCE, in
which all the planets were involved, must have been the reason that the text continued
to be copied. This text may have been used by the Babylonians to predict future similar
spectacular conjunctions for astrological purposes.
37  This is not correct; the beginning of the Babylonian zodiac is located close to the star η
Piscium and not ς Piscium (see H. Hunger and D. Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia
[Leiden: Brill, 1999], 148–51).
38  The outer planets Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn attain their greatest brightness when they are
in opposition with the Sun because (i) their full disc is illuminated, and (ii) they are at the
shortest distance to the Earth in their orbit around the Sun.
39  Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndeuting in Babel, 22.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

148 de Jong

Virgo.40 He suggests that this is important for the conception horoscope that
the magi must have made.
Kritzinger then discusses the astronomical events during the night of 30/31
March 7 BCE. Mars is visible in the East as the only planet when Venus sets in
the West, one hour after sunset. Then, at about 4:45 in the morning, one hour
before sunrise, as Mars sets, Jupiter rises in the East, shortly followed by Saturn
in its fijirst visibility. He claims that this is the day that the magi saw “his star in
the East” in Matt 2:2. He suggests that the conception must have taken place
around this time, so that Jesus must have been born sometime in November/
December 7 BCE.41 The magi started their trip to Jerusalem around the time
of the second conjunction (about October 1) and arrived shortly before the
third conjunction (December 4), which “went before them” (προῆγεν αὐτούσ,
another textual difffijiculty) when they reached Bethlehem.
In the fijinal chapter of his book, Kritzinger discusses independent historical
evidence in favor of a birthdate for Jesus in late 7 BCE. He addresses the cali-
bration of the Christian era (the chronological mistake of Dionysius Exiguus),
the lunar eclipse preceding the death of King Herod on 13 March 4 BCE,
and other results of biblical chronology.

Heinrich Gisbert Voigt (1860–1933)

Triggered by the polemic exchange of papers on the interpretation of the

Star of Bethlehem that followed the publication of von Oefele’s proposal, the
German theologian and church historian Heinrich Gisbert Voigt42 published
in 1911 a book entitled Die Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie,43 in which he tried
to demonstrate that the Hellenistic astrological doctrines prevalent around
the beginning of our era could explain the motivation and the behavior of the

40  In actual fact, Mars passed γ Vir at a distance of 9′ (1/3 lunar diameter) one hour after sun-
set on 25 March. The star γ Vir is one of the Babylonian so-called normal stars known as
DELE šá IGI ABSIN (the single star in front of the furrow; see Hunger and Pingree, Astral
Sciences, 148–49).
41  Note that this birthdate falls about one year earlier than the date proposed by von Oefele.
42  For a short biography of Heinrich Voigt, see Deutsche Biographische Enzyclopedie vol. 10,
p. 237.
43  The fact that Voigt’s book is printed in old German Gothic letter type may have con-
tributed to its being virtually ignored in the English-speaking literature on the Star of
Bethlehem.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 149

magi in Matthew’s narrative.44 Although their books were published almost

simultaneously, it appears that Voigt must have had access to Kritzinger’s man-
uscript, because he refers to the latter’s work extensively.
In the introduction and chapter one of his book, Voigt introduces the
question of the interpretation of the Star of Bethlehem by extensively quot-
ing Kepler’s work (De stella nova, De vero anno). He discusses improvements
in the astronomical calculations since Kepler and quotes the work of Ideler,
Kritzinger, and Guthnick.45 The calculations of Kritzinger are based on the
Tables of P. V. Neugebauer (as mentioned above).
In chapter two, Voigt summarizes the work of van Oefele, which was based
on the planetary tables in demotic papyrus Berlin P 8279 (as we saw above),
and in chapter three he describes the polemic that developed between the
theologian O. Strauss, who defended von Oefele, and Kritzinger, who pub-
lished critical comments on some aspects of von Oefele’s work and supported
the proposal made by Ideler that the Jupiter–Saturn conjunction of 7 BCE is to
be identifijied with the star in Matthew 2.
Chapter four contains the main results of Voigt’s research on Hellenistic
astrology at the time of Jesus’ birth. He agrees with von Oefele that the astro-
nomical constellation that led the magi to Jerusalem is the one of April 6 BCE,
but he argues that von Oefele does not give satisfactory answers to the ques-
tion of what moved them to embark on their pilgrimage. He discusses reac-
tions to von Oefele’s suggestion in the recent literature by Strauss, Guthnick,
Kritzinger and others. Then he turns to the Gnostic literature of the fijirst few
centuries CE, in particular the Pistis Sophia, where the planet Jupiter is associ-
ated with the religion of the Jews. He argues that, according to the Gnostic
texts, Jupiter is the most important planet in the 6 BCE constellation. This
simultaneously solves the problem that Matthew 2 speaks of ἀστὴρ and not
of ἀστρὸν.
He then turns to the ancient astrological literature in an attempt to answer
the question of what astronomical confijiguration led the magi to search for
a newborn king of the Jews in Jerusalem. The most important source is the
Tetrabiblos by Claudius Ptolemy (ca. 125 CE), but the work of Sextus Empiricus,
who lived about 50 years later and is critical of astrology, is also an important
source of information. Horoscopic astrology is not so relevant for the magi,
but rather a more general astrological prognosis applicable to a country and

44  Many aspects of Hellenistic astrology discussed by Voigt in his book are reconsidered in
the light of modern scholarship in the chapter by Stephan Heilen in this volume.
45  For references, see Voigt, Die Geschichte Jesu, notes 20 and 21.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

150 de Jong

its people. The best procedure is to look at the planets and their positions in
certain zodiacal signs and regions of the sky (rising, setting, zenith, nadir, etc.)
as well as their relative aspects. Ptolemy and the Roman poet and astrologer
Marcus Manilius (fijirst century CE) mention that Aries represents the land of
the Jews and that Aries is the house of Mars.
Voigt summarizes the astronomical phenomena in the spring of 6 BCE
based on von Oefele, using Kritzinger’s astronomical data. He suggests that
more astronomical calculations are required in order to determine the key
moments for the magi. He notes that in April 6 BCE, all the planets cluster
together, centered on Aries, with Jupiter in the middle.
Following up on Voigt’s suggestion, I have computed the positions of the
planets and their dates of fijirst/last appearance in the spring of 6 BCE using
modern values of the orbital elements of the Sun, Moon, and planets and com-
puting dates of fijirst and last visibility for an atmospheric visual extinction of
0.27 magnitudes per airmass,46 with the following results:

– The cluster of all the planets reaches its minimum extent of 42° at sunrise
on 15 April 6 BCE, running from Venus (18°39′ Pisces), through Saturn (28°18′
Pisces), Jupiter (11°05′ Aries), the Sun (21°55′ Aries), to Mars (0°36′ Taurus)
and Mercury (0°43′ Taurus), while the Moon (13°36′ Pisces) would pass
Venus later that day to join this so-called massing of the planets.
– During the night of 14/15 April, Venus is the only planet visible (as morning
star) so that this massing of the planets is not observable and their positions
can only be predicted by computation (e.g., using planetary tables, as in
P 8279). The other planets Saturn (4 March), Jupiter (18 March), and Mars
(25 March) had disappeared from the (evening) sky, and Mercury (13 March)
from the (morning) sky, in the preceding month.
– Mercury is expected to reappear in the morning sky on 16 April 6 BCE, Sat-
urn on 18 April, and Jupiter on 24 April,47 but Mars would remain invisible

46  The physical principles underlying the method of computing fijirst and last visibilities of
the planets are explained in my paper “Babylonian Observations of Venus: Arcus Visionis,
Atmospheric Extinction and Observational Practice”,  Journal for the History of Astronomy
43 (2012): 391–409. A visual atmospheric extinction of 0.27 magnitudes per airmass is typi-
cal for ancient Babylon and may also apply to Jerusalem.
47  The date of 17 April 6 BCE, as suggested by Molnar (The Star of Bethlehem, 89) for Jupiter’s
heliacal rising, requires a visual atmospheric extinction of 0.13 mag/airmass in Babylon
and 0.11 mag/airmass in Jerusalem. Both extinction values are exceptionally low and may
be expected only during a few nights per year. The occultation by the Moon of Jupiter
at its heliacal rising on 17 April, as suggested by Molnar, is not confijirmed by accurate

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 151

for almost four months, fijinally reappearing in the morning of 13 July, a week
before the reappearance of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky.
– All dates of fijirst and last visibility given above have margins of uncertainty
of at least a few days, due to variations in atmospheric extinction (weather).

According to Voigt, Jupiter is the most important planet, and he quotes pas-
sages from the Tetrabiblos to interpret the astronomical situation. The crucial
moment is the heliacal rising of Jupiter (“We have seen his star in the East”).
Based on the preceding astrological considerations (not taken into account
by von Oefele), Voigt supports von Oefele in assuming that the conception of
Jesus occurred in April 6 BCE, leading to a birthdate near the end of 6 BCE or
the beginning of 5 BCE.
Voigt argues that the astrology of Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos) and the Gnosis
(Pistis Sophia) is more applicable than the old Babylonian astrology.48 First-
century Hellenistic astrology points to Jupiter as associated with Israel, while
the old Babylonian astrology would point to Mars or Saturn.
Based on Babylonian doctrines, Kritzinger and his followers have expressed
a preference for Mars as representing the Westland. At the same time, they
assign great importance to the Jupiter–Saturn conjunction in 7 BCE. According
to Voigt, this creates a contradiction, since Mars and Jupiter cannot both be
representative of Israel and the Jewish people. Mars sets heliacally in 6 BCE
in Aries and becomes visible again for the fijirst time in the East only three
months later in Cancer. He fijinds it improbable that in 6 BCE Mars may
have been the star that the magi saw in the East. Nevertheless, based on old
Babylonian astrology, it cannot be excluded that Mars may be associated with
the star.
Voigt also criticizes the importance that Kritzinger assigns to the conjunc-
tion of Mars (in opposition with Jupiter) on 25 March 7 BCE with the star γ
Virginis. He summarizes some of the arguments in favor of identifying Mars
(Kritzinger, Guthnick) or Jupiter (Voigt) with the star. He points out that
later Hellenistic and Gnostic astrologers identify Jupiter as the star of Israel,
while the old Babylonians prefer Mars. He also investigates to what extent
Persian doctrines (Zoroaster) may have contributed to the astrological

astronomical calculations. At sunrise on 17 April, Jupiter precedes the (invisible) Moon by

more than 3°, about 6 lunar diameters.
48  See the Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon by R. C. Thompson
(London, 1900).

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

152 de Jong

views of the magi and their expectations of the birth of a messiah to save
humankind.
Following Kritzinger, Voigt fijinally discusses the trip of the Parthian prince
and magus Tiridates to Rome in 66 CE. He acknowledges Kritzinger as being
the fijirst to point to the spectacular conjunction (separation 15 arc minutes)
of Mars and Jupiter in Aries in 66 CE. Using this conjunction, Voigt puts the
story of Tiridates’ visit to Emperor Nero in Rome in an astrological context,
and he discusses it as a parallel to the trip of the magi in 6 BCE to pay tribute to
Jesus. He notes that Matthew is supposed to have written his gospel in Antioch
around 80 CE, shortly after this trip.
In chapter fijive, on the historicity of the story of the star, Voigt refers to
Dieterich,49 who had suggested that the trip of the magi to Nero in 66 CE
served as a model for Matthew when he wrote chapter two of his gospel.50
Dieterich also emphasizes the Persian origin of the magi. Voigt thinks that the
astrological background to the Star of Bethlehem is a strong point in favor of
its historicity.
He discusses research into the historical dating of the birth and life of Jesus
and points out that the historical data and the astronomical/astrological inter-
pretation are consistent in terms of time. He argues that early Christianity did
not show much interest in dating the conception and the birth of Jesus. The
apparent contradictions between events described in the gospels of Luke and
Matthew can be historically reconciled if viewed within an astrological con-
text. The phrase ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ and the word αστὴρ play an important role in
this discussion. According to Voigt, they refer to the heliacal rising of Jupiter in
the spring of 6 BCE.51 Additionally, the attitude of Herod towards the magi and
his interrogation and interpellation of the Sanhedrin fijits in with the interpre-
tation of the magi as astrologers from the East.

49  A. Dieterich, “Die Weissen aus dem Morgenlande,” Zeitschrift für neutestamentische
Wissenschaft 3 (1902): 4fff.
50  See also the chapter by A. de Jong in this volume.
51  It is interesting to note that, already in 1903, von Oefele (“Die Angaben der Berliner
Planetentafel P8279,” 4) refers to a conversation with the classicist Franz Boll in which
the latter expresses his mistrust of the conjunction theory based on the use of the word
ἀστὴρ (star) rather than ἀστρὸν (stellar group or constellation) in Matt 2. Triggered by the
publication of Voigt’s book, Boll (“Der Stern der Weisen,” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentische
Wissenschaft 18 [1917/18]: 40–48) apparently decided to put his criticism of the interpre-
tation of several of the Greek terms in Matthew’s narrative on record in a short paper,
ironically entitled Der Stern der Weisen.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 153

Voigt wonders why there is no reference to the trip of the magi, their visit
to Herod, Herod’s reaction, and their worshipping of Jesus in the work of the
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. After a lengthy discussion of Herod and his
considerations and actions, Voigt argues (again) in favor of the historicity of
the events described in Matthew 2 and their astrological interpretation.
In chapter six, Voigt analyzes the text of Matthew in order to ascertain the
birthdate of Christ; he also discusses the date of his baptism and his death. Von
Oefele and O. Strauss go too far when they interpret the text of Matthew 2 as
an astrological message, but Voigt still thinks that it is possible that some astro-
logical report underlies the story of the magi. The interpretation of the word
ἐστάθη (stood) by von Oefele as the moment of Jupiter reaching its station-
ary point in Aries is far-fetched. Voigt reduces the problem to two questions:
(i) Which astrological moment was identifijied by the magi with Jesus’ birth?
(ii) What was meant by ἐστάθη? If the magi considered 15 April 6 BCE as the
moment of conception, then the station of Jupiter on 24 December (P 8279)
cannot be associated with ἐστάθη, but may be associated with the birthdate.
A planet resuming its forward movement is a good omen in cuneiform texts.
Voigt then argues (unconvincingly) that the magi may have expected Jesus’
birth on the day that Jupiter exited Aries to enter Taurus, i.e. on 24 January 5
BCE, according to P 8279. But the main interest in Matt 2:9 is the phrase ἐστάθη
ἐπάνω (it stood above). This must have happened after the birth of Jesus. Voigt
argues that it can be very well explained as the culmination of Jupiter. The only
problem remaining, then, is the phrase προῆγεν αὐτούσ (went before them) in
Matt 2:9. This should not be taken too literally and may be a relic from the
astrological text that underlies the Gospel of Matthew.
Voigt summarizes von Oefele’s (largely taken over by O. Strauss) chronologi-
cal sequence of events as follows:

– 15 Apr 6 BCE: Conception

– 25 Nov 6 BCE: Trip to Jerusalem
– 25 Dec 6 BCE: Birthdate
– 28 Dec 6 BCE: Magi paying tribute
– 6 Jan 7 BCE: Children of Bethlehem massacre

Their opponents Kritzinger, E. Jäger and Guthnick support a diffferent scenario:

– 31 Mar 7 BCE: Conception, heliacal rising of Saturn (ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ)

– 1 Oct 7 BCE: Second conjunction, trip to Jerusalem
– End of November 7 BCE: Birthdate
– 5 Dec 7 BCE: Third conjunction, magi travel to Bethlehem

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

154 de Jong

If ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, interpreted as the heliacal rising of a planet, is to be associated

with the moment of conception, Voigt argues that the heliacal rising of Jupiter
on 14 April 6 BCE is the only possibility. In agreement with P 8279, the birth of
Jesus must then have taken place on 24 January 5 BCE, as proposed above.
Voigt then discusses the date on which Jesus died, because this will turn
out to support his birthdate scenario. After a lengthy chronological argu-
ment, including references to a large number of ancient historians and church
fathers, he concludes that Jesus died on 15 April 29 CE and was baptized on
10/11 January 27 CE. He ends this chapter by arguing that these results are in
surprisingly good agreement with his proposal for the birthdate of Jesus on
24 January 5 BCE, the date on which Jupiter left Aries and entered Taurus (see
P 8279). Future research on the life of Jesus should reckon with this chronologi-
cal framework.
In his epilogue, the theologian Voigt addresses the central remaining ques-
tion: “Why did God make use of astrological lore as described in chapter 2 of
the apostle Mathew?”52 Voigt argues that, for the modern historian, this ques-
tion does not exist, because for him the trip of the magi is an interesting his-
torical coincidence. For those who want to see the hand of God in the course of
human history, this remains a real question. Voigt attempts to give an answer to
this question, emphasizing that Matthew’s story cannot be taken as an implicit
Godly justifijication of astrology. Perhaps the following realization can reconcile
the diffferent answers to this question: “The coming of Jesus Christ in this world
was written by God in the stars.”53

Franz Xaver Kugler (1868–1929)

It could well be more than an interesting coincidence that, one year after the
publication of Kritzinger’s and Voigt’s books, F. X. Kugler, the founding father
of the discipline of Babylonian astronomy, formulated his answer to the above
question raised by Voigt. In a short paper entitled “Der Stern von Bethlehem,”
published in the Jesuit journal Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,54 referring to both
Kritzinger and Voigt, Kugler reviewed many of the arguments pro and contra
the conjunction hypothesis. Then, in a personal and poetic last paragraph of
his paper he, the Jesuit priest, confesses that he believes in a miraculous and
inspired origin of the star that led the magi to Jerusalem:

52  Voigt, Die Geschichte Jesu, 145.

53  Voigt, Die Geschichte Jesu, 148.
54  Kugler, “Der Stern von Bethlehem,” Stimmen aus Maria-Laach 83 (1912): 481–92.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 155

Yes, also the holy Magi may in vain have strived many a night to read in
the stars the Godly ruling and to search for the sign of Him on which the
nations were waiting. Year after year passes by, the planets appear in the
East and the West out of the rays of the Sun, pull their paths by the fijixed
stars, pass each other and disappear, falling stars spray the sky at regular
times of the year, lonely light sparks shoot all of a sudden through the
universe, sun-size fijireballs disturb the air by the thunder of their explo-
sion, colorful rings and discs surround the Moon, the shadow of the Earth
covers at times the full face of the light bringer of the night, even comets
appear, and far stretch their light tails. But all that was nothing extraordi-
nary; already for thousands of years the astrologers had seen similar phe-
nomena and had recorded them on clay tablets; the awaited sign does still
not appear. Then, all of a sudden shines in the towering height a Light in
never seen splendor. Not meteor-like, but slowly it drifts to the West. That
is the Sign! A powerful inner voice announces it. Overpowered, speech-
less the Magi sink on their knee, their arms lifted in prayer, the enraptured
eye turned to the miraculous Light. It disappears at the Western horizon.
Already the twilight announces the new day. Still the men are kneeling
down. For their minds eye appears the holy Virgin with her Godly child,
the Light of the World, the King of Kings. And they hear a voice: Cometh
to me! The vision dissolves. The day breaks. Gigantic the solar ball rises,
this time the symbol of a new life. The men rise. Their decision is made:
forth towards the Godly King! “And they left everything behind and fol-
lowed him.”55

Conclusion: De Ster der Wijzen

When Dominicus Sloet published his little book De Ster der Wijzen in 1920 and
dedicated it as a “humble tribute to Dr. F. X. Kugler in Valkenburg,” the fijierce
debate about the astronomical interpretation of the star and the origin of the
magi that had taken place ten years earlier among German scholars was over.
Sloet could stand back and combine the ingredients of the diffferent scenarios
proposed to come up with his own version of an explanation of the events
described in Matthew 2. His scenario is indeed an amalgamation of previous
proposals. In essence it runs as follows:

55  I have made an efffort in the translation of this quite personal statement to do justice to
Kugler’s somewhat archaic and romantic use of the German language.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

156 de Jong

– The planet Mars is the ἀστὴρ to be associated with the newborn king of the
Jews. Sloet quotes Kugler: “The relation of the planets to certain countries
becomes particularly clear for Jupiter and Mars. Jupiter is the star of Akkad
[Babylonia], resp. its king; Mars, on the contrary, the star of Amurru [the
Westland (and Elam)]. Faint brightness, resp. decrease in magnitude means
disaster; increasing brightness on the other hand wellbeing of the associ-
ated country and the contrary for the other country, resp. its king. Similarly,
the approaching of Mars to Jupiter means threatening of Akkad and its king
by the army of the Amurru.”56
– In March 7 BCE Mars rises acronychally57 and reaches its greatest bright-
ness, outshining all the stars in the sky (“When a planet surpasses the stars
of the sky in brightness, a king will destroy the land. Mars has become bright
and has outshone the stars”).58
– The three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BCE are the markers of an
important historical change in turbulent times, with collective messianic
expectation.
– On the evening of 26 February 6 BCE, the confijiguration of Mars at the end
of Pisces, standing between Jupiter and Saturn near the star η Piscium, the
zero point of the Babylonian zodiac, may have had special signifijicance for
the magi (the moment of conception?).
– Mars disappears from the sky shortly afterwards until its triumphal return at
its heliacal rising with Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, in July 6 BCE.
– Jesus is born at the end of November 6 BCE.

Sloet concludes his little book with the strong statement: “If the Star of the
Magi has been a natural and calculable phenomenon, further searching is no
longer required.” Even if one does not go along with this conclusion, the little
book that he wrote contains an interesting summary of the exchange of ideas
among theologians and astronomers about the interpretation of the star dur-
ing the fijirst two decades of the twentieth century. It is to be regretted that this

56  Kugler (Im Bannkreis Babels [Münster, 1910], 111), my translation.

57  The acronychal rising of an (outer) planet was routinely observed and its date recorded
by Babylonian astronomers during the last seven centuries BCE (see Hunger and Pingree,
Astral Sciences, 145). The acronychal rising marks the moment that a planet becomes vis-
ible close to the Eastern horizon shortly after sunset (see L. Hollywood and J. M. Steele,
“Acronycal Risings in Babylonian Astronomy,” Centaurus 46 [2004]: 145–62). The date of
acronychal rising of a planet precedes the date of opposition of the planet with the Sun,
when the planet reaches its greatest brightness, by about a week.
58  Kugler (Sternkunde und Sterndeuting in Babel, 22), my translation.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

De Ster der Wijzen (1920) 157

early research of German scholars has been almost completely ignored in the
later literature on the Star of Bethlehem.

Bibliography

Boll, F. “Der Stern der Weisen.” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentische Wissenschaft 18

(1917/18): 40–48.
Britton, J. P. “Remarks on Strassmaier Cambyses 400.” Pages 8–34 in From the Banks of
the Euphrates: Studies in Honor of Alice Louise Slotsky. Edited by Micah Ross. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Dieterich, A. “Die Weissen aus dem Morgenlande.” Zeitschrift für neutestamentische
Wissenschaft 3 (1902): 4fff.
d’Ochieppo, K. Ferrari. Der Stern der Weisen. Geschichte oder Legende? Vienna: Verlag
Herold, 1977.
Goerke, H. “Felix Freiher von Oefele.” Neue Deutsche Biographie 19 (1999): 428.
Hollywood, L., and J. M. Steele. “Acronycal Risings in Babylonian Astronomy.” Centaurus
46 (2004): 145–62.
Hontheim, J. “Die Konjunktion des Jupiter und Saturn im Jahre 7 v. Chr.” Der Katholik
88 (1908): 187–95.
Hughes, D. The Star of Bethlehem. New York: Walker, 1979.
Hunger, H., and D. Pingree. Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Hunger, H., A. J. Sachs, and J. M. Steele. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
Babylonia, Vol. V: Lunar and Planetary Texts. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001.
Ideler, L. Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie II. Berlin: August
Rücker, 1826.
———. Lehrbuch der Chronologie. Berlin: August Rücker, 1831.
de Jong, T. “Babylonian Observations of Venus: Arcus Visionis, Atmospheric
Extinction and Observational Practice.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 43
(2012): 391–409.
———. “Babylonian Astronomy: 1850–1930.” In Otto Neugebauer and Modern
Transformations of the History of Ancient Science. Edited by A. Jones, Chr. Proust,
and J. M. Steele. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015 (in press).
Kennedy, E. S., and D. Pingree. The Astrological History of Māshā’allāh. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1971.
Kritzinger, H. H. Die Stern der Weisen. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1911.
Kugler, F. X. “Ein rätselvolle astronomische Keilinschrift (Strm. Kambys. 400).”
Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 17 (1903): 203.
———. Sternkunde und Sterndeuting in Babel. Vol. 1, part 1. Münster, 1909.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV

158 de Jong

———. Im Bannkreis Babels. Münster, 1910.

———. “Der Stern von Bethlehem.” Stimmen aus Maria-Laach 83 (1912): 481–92.
Mayer, Ernst. Handbuch der Astrologie. Berlin: Decker, 1901.
Molnar, M. R. The Star of Bethlehem. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999.
Neugebauer, O. “Egyptian Planetary Texts.” Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., New Series 32 (1942):
210–50.
———. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 Vols. Berlin: Springer, 1975.
Neugebauer, P. V. “Abgekürtzte Tafeln der Sonne und der grossen Planeten.”
Veröfffentichungen des königliches Astronomisches Recheninstitut zu Berlin 25 (1904).
———. “Abgekürtzte Tafeln des Mondes.” Veröfffentichungen des königliches
Astronomisches Recheninstitut zu Berlin 27 (1905).
Petre, M. D. Autobiography and Life of George Tyrrell vol. II, Life of George Tyrrell 1884–
1909. London: Edward Arnold, 1912.
Pingree, D. “Astronomy and Astrology in India and Iran.” Isis 54 (1963): 229–46.
Pritchard, C. “On the Conjunctions of the Planets Jupiter and Saturn in the Years BC 7,
BC 66 and AD 54”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Vol. XVI (1856):
215–216.
Rengert, B. “Pfarresohn, Astronom und Astrologe. Geboren in Boitzenburg: Hans-
Hermann Kitzinger.” Uckermark Kurier 146 (26 June 2006): 27.
Rogier, L. J., and N. de Rooy. In vrijheid herboren. Katholiek Nederland 1853–1953. The
Hague: N. V. Uitgeversmij Pax, 1953.
Sloet, D. A. W. H. De Ster der Wijzen. Bussum: Uitgevers-Mij. Paul Brand, 1920.
Swijnenberg, O. Utrechtse Biografijieën: van Angstel tot Kromme Mijdrecht: levensbeschri-
jvingen van bekende en onbekende mensen uit Abcoude, Baambrugge en De Ronde
Venen. Utrecht: Stichting Publicaties Oud-Utrecht, 2001.
Thompson, R. C. Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Niniveh and Babylon.
London, 1900.
de Valk, J. P. Roomser dan de Paus? Studies over de betrekkingen tussen de Heilige Stoel en
het Nederlands katholicisme, 1815–1940. Nijmegen: Uitgeverij Valkhof Pers, Nijmegen,
1998.
van der Waerden, B. L. “Egyptian ‘Eternal Tables’ I.” Proceedings of the Kon. Ned. Akad.
Wet. 50 (1947): 536–47.
Voigt, H. G. Die Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie. Leipzig: Hinrichse Buchhandlung,
1911.
von Oefele, F. “Die Angaben der Berliner Planetentafel P8279 verglichen mit
dem Geburtsgeschichte Christi im Berichte des Matthäus.” Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatischen Gesellshaft 8 no. 2 (1903): 1–45.
———. “Das Horoskop der Empfängnis Christi mit den Evangelien verglichen.”
Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellshaft 8 no. 6 (1903): 1–15.

For use by the Author only | © 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV