Richard Carrier Reviews my Star of Bethlehem Book & Talks About the Problems with Astrotheology

9780956694867- Font CoverWith my book out for about a month, I have now received a great review/blog post about The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View. And it comes from Richard Carrier, who also provided a very positive blurb for the book. He was very supportive in my researching this topic, and I’m sure my book would have been much inferior without his help.

In his review, Carrier brings up a point that I hadn’t actually consciously gone for, but it is a valid expansion. In the book, I point out how ancient astrologers did not have some well-defined method of interpretation of the skies, and there were significant differences between Babylonian/Assyrian methods and the Hellenistic form that has become dominant in the West and India. And because there is such massive discord among the ancients, it makes it very dubious to create an astrotheological interpretation of early Christianity and the Gospels.

For example, I showed that the system of astrological geography–that is, how different regions of the world were under the influence of different constellations or signs–were completely different from astrologer to astrologer. I even quoted from the most famous of the ancient astrologers, Ptolemy, about how astrological interpretation is even nigh-impossible or at least very difficult even by experts, let along the charlatans of the age. With this and other points I make, I prove that a modern scholar cannot look at a horoscope and know how it would have been interpreted; I even use an example of one of the horoscopes created for Jesus by Michael Molnar and show you can either get the King of Kings or a misshapen sex slave. Oops.

But when I think of astrotheology, what comes to mind is the work of Acharya S/D.M. Murdock and its use in part 1 of Zeitgeist. There are two major things that I will consider here from that work: the astrotheological version of the Star of Bethlehem, and the importance of the precession of the equinoxes.

Now, I did consider looking at this idea about the Star in the book, and perhaps I should have. Then again, it hasn’t been put into any peer-review journal or book unlike even the bad Star of Bethlehem theories that I disprove. Also, I have talked about this in some previous videos I made, including in the talk I gave a couple of weeks ago (video jumps to where I start to talk about it at 37:20).

The key points are that the astronomy does not stand up (Orion already set before sunrise, and the alignment doesn’t happen on Dec 25 under the most favorable of interpretations), the symbolism is based on no ancient sources (i.e. belt of Orion called the 3 kings), it tries to explain things that have nothing to do with the original story from the Gospels (i.e. birth on Dec 25, 3 kings), and it doesn’t explain details from the Gospel of Matthew (i.e. a star hanging over a particular location). In fact, the alignment being talked of has nothing to do with how astrologers did their work. The sorts of alignments done back in the day used horoscopes, and then only concerned the planets and the zodiac constellations. That would exclude Orion and Sirius which is so important to Murdock’s hypothesis. And there are no records that show the (non-existent) alignment was important to Egyptians in antiquity. The whole thing is modern invention.

Another major component is the belief that people were interested in the coming of astrological ages. These shifts happen when the vernal equinox (the location of the Sun on the first day of spring) slowly moves from one zodiac constellation to another, forever immortalized in the song “Aquarius” from the musical Hair. Now, the very idea of astrological ages cannot go back farther than its discovery, and that is usually credited to Hipparchus of Rhodes in the 2nd century BCE. That is pre-Christian, but it’s not so early that it could explain other religions, such as Egyptian or Babylonian. And considering most people were not exactly astronomers, it isn’t safe to assume that the discovery by Hipparchus was known by the masses. The best evidence I know of is the hypothesis that the Mithras religion based based on this discovery, which is argued by David Ulansey. However, his hypothesis has long favor after the work done by Roger Beck, the top scholar in the field of Mithraic studies (and whom I hope to meet next year at the Star of Bethlehem conference).

But even if we allow this to be common knowledge for the early Christians to use, there is still a significant problem: When was the astrological age to change? At the beginning of the 1st century, as shown by Otto Neugebauer and referenced by Michael Molnar, the vernal equinox was at about 5 degrees in Aries. Based on the calculations of how quickly precession was believed to have happened, it would have been 500 years in the future. Hardly coming “coming soon” as seen in the authentic letters of Paul and the Book of Revelation. And since we can’t even know if people back then would have given this a sort of amazing status as Murdock would suppose, we can’t make this work.

But if you look at the Wikipedia page, it says that some calculate that the Age of Pisces (after Aries) began around the time of Jesus’s birth. How is that so? It’s based on back calculations from modern astrologers to fit their own spiritual views. It’s a modern contrivance. It also was such to get it that the Age of Aquarius was something in the near future for Baby Boomers; things like the Vietnam war were the last throes of the age of Pisces. This is hardly relevant to reconstructing religious beliefs from 2000 years ago, and that shows how much astrotheology is a modern creation. (Then again, medieval astrologers did the same things for their own times, so there really isn’t anything new under the Sun.)

Now, there is one bit of argumentation I have seen that has the greatest plausibility of looking at the Jesus story in terms of solar symbolism, something that has been brought up by a commenter on this blog (his paper is here). The points are that in Luke 1:26 and the context there has Jesus being conceived six months after John the Baptist was. And in the Gospel of John 3:30 the Baptist says how he must decrease so that the other may increase. Now, if one views Jesus and John acting as the Sun and different times of year, John is the dying sun in winter, while Jesus is the rising sun of summer. In other words, the six months is about the solstices.

However, this doesn’t really work well given what we know about how literature was written back then. Suppose you only had the Gospel of Luke and not John, which would have been the case for Luke’s first readers. All you have is the six-month time difference between the conceptions of Jesus and John. How does a reader get solar myth out of just that? There aren’t any other details in the story from Luke to support that. There just aren’t enough narrative clues to the reader.

Let’s compare this time issue with a more recent literary example: Frankenstein. (It’s after Halloween, but it’s still a great book.) According to the novel, Dr. Frankenstein worked for nine months to create his cadaver-man, which he then rejected because he (it?) was hideous. Because the story is about a man giving life, the nine-month period has a symbolic role by relating the creation of the Monster to child-bearing, a nine-month process. It is because the context of the story in the novel (and not by reading a later novel) as well as the cultural assumptions that would go into reading it by the audience, we can see what Mary Shelly was doing. Modern scholars also compare it to Shelly’s own troubles with having children, but that is besides the point to consider here.

But this is not the case with the six months in the Gospel of Luke. We have to mix it up with a later work with details from a different story (adult Jesus and John rather than their nativities). And it’s this sort of mixing and matching of details that brought ridicule to the history of religions school of the turn of the 20th century. Moreover, the use of some solar symbolism doesn’t mean the whole story is about the sun. After all, King Louis XIV of France was known as the Sun King; that use of a symbolic name doesn’t mean he was a sun god. In fact, this sort of ridicule against this sort of arguing is old; it was done against Charles François Dupuis by using his methods to “prove” Napoleon was just a solar myth and not some general worthy of being feared. The same was repeated with Max Muller in the late 19th century.

Now, I won’t pretend to know necessarily why Luke says there was a six month difference between the conceptions of Jesus and John. Perhaps six months is when it’s obvious to anyone in antiquity that a woman is pregnant and so for Mary on her visit to Elizabeth (John’s elderly mother-to-be) it was clear to her that Elizabeth had had a miraculous birth as well. Or perhaps there were other traditions involved worth considering. When looking at Borg and Crossan’s The First Christmas (pp. 108-109), they bring up a targum that talks of a story of a man of the tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe) returning to be with his wife, a woman well over 100 years in age. But upon the man’s return to her she became young and gave birth to a son in just six months. Considering that John’s father, Zechariah, was a priest, and Elizabeth was an old woman beyond her child-bearing years, then perhaps this is the background for what we see in Luke.

Now, that is only a speculation of mine. But it explains the evidence at least as well as a solar myth explanation, and unless one can show how the solar myth can explain the story in the Gospel of Luke better, then we don’t actually have evidence in favor of the solar myth hypothesis. And since this seems to be one of the best cases out there, I have to say there isn’t much of a case to be made.

So I do agree with Carrier that the nature of astrology in antiquity doesn’t allow for much confidence in astrotheological explanations for Christianity or Christian literature. And the particular ideas out there don’t stand up to scrutiny and are really modern inventions. Astrotheological explanations have little or nothing in common with the diverse (but still not infinitely malleable) methods of ancient astrology. This isn’t to say there aren’t any astrological elements in Christianity (the Book of Revelation has some notable ones), but there is nothing even close to the explanatory power needed to make sense of the Gospels or the origins of the religion.


10 thoughts on “Richard Carrier Reviews my Star of Bethlehem Book & Talks About the Problems with Astrotheology

  1. I notice that you did not read with due care the items from me presented.

    Your explanation of my work is very simplistic. I presented a list of biblical passages that have a perfect explanation in the solar myth:
    Lk 1:17, Lk 1:26, Lk 9.9
    Jn 1:30, Jn 3:30
    Mk 1:7, Mk 1:14, Mk 6:16,
    Mt 4:12-17, Mt 14:1-2, Mt 17:10-13
    And Also the story of Elijah and Elisha told in the Book of Kings.

    The solar myth, which has always been present in ancient times by the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans if not in the same Jews, was present in the form of Mithraism in the Roman Empire, who was born with the discovery of the Ages by part of Hipparchus

    I apologize for my English

    • There is a key point that I mentioned: there is only one verse in Luke that could be in reference to solar myth, but there wasn’t sufficient cluing in of the reader. The way myth was written was that you could actually interpret the meaning from the given text, not by incorporating the details from other, later works in narratives that aren’t connected. See my Frankenstein/pregnancy example above.

      As for the Mithras/precession argument, I actually considered that as well, noting that the most serious attempt at that by David Ulansey is now superseded by the work of Roger Beck.

      I also note that you used Dupuis as a source; that is not a good idea. Not only is his work over 200 years out of date, but his methods and sources are far inferior to what we have today. I also noted above how Dupuis’s methods were used to who that Napoleon was a myth. From the particular facts I notice in your linked paper, you say that the Age of Pisces began in 70 BCE. There is no evidence for that; again, I noted how at the turn of the millennium astrologers thought that the vernal equinox was at about 5 degrees Aries and centuries away from entering Pisces. In fact, your own words contradict what you say; for example, you say that an average astrological age was 2150 years, but you made the Age of Pisces from 70 BCE to 2610 CE or about 2700 years. I am guessing you are trying to treat Pisces as a larger constellation than the others in the zodiac, but astrologers starting in Babylon made all the signs in a horoscope the same size (30 degrees).

      There are a lot of bad or out-of-date sources out there. If you want to understand what we do know about ancient astronomy and astrology, you will want to start with works such as those by Otto Neugebauer; his work is old, but it’s based on exact mathematics and his methods are very good. The work of others such as David Pingree, E.S. Kennedy, and others are also good.

      • “The way myth was written was that you could actually interpret the meaning from the given text, not by incorporating the details from other, later works in narratives that aren’t connected.”
        You forget one very important thing: the text of the Gospels that has survived is the result of revisions lasted centuries. We have to thank the lack of foresight of the apologists in converting a completely allegorical tale derived from therapeutic documents in a post that would satisfy the new religion of Constantine.

        “As for the Mithras/precession argument, I actually considered that as well, noting that the most serious attempt at that by David Ulansey is now superseded by the work of Roger Beck.”
        I gave a glance at the work of Beck that i did not know. I am amazed. The lion-headed Aion or Aeon, the most important deity along with Mithra, is only mentioned in a note: “The other intensely problematic figure is the Mithraic lion-headed god”. He consider the focus of the theology rotate around the moon and the sun and identifies the Taurus with the Moon; he has not grasped the meaning of Cautes and Cautopates that correspond to the ancient Ormazd and Ahriman; not a nod to the precession, to which I have arrived independently from Ulansey, and made explicit in an inscription of mitreum of Santa Prisca only mentioned in the bibliography. How Beck explains the Transitus? It was so important to be represented in the iconography of the myth?

        “I also note that you used Dupuis as a source”
        No, I used Dupuis as a mentor.

        “I am guessing you are trying to treat Pisces as a larger constellation than the others in the zodiac, but astrologers starting in Babylon made all the signs in a horoscope the same size (30 degrees).”
        Yes, I totally agree if we refer to the Gnostic division of the zodiac into twelve equal parts, which even today has the vernal equinox in the gamma point of the Ram, and this because you do not want to admit the precession which could be decoded only with direct observation of the star field and then locate the true transition from Bull to Ram and Ram to Fish.

        Thank you for your attention, I think you and I both have had new elements of reflection.

    • Thank you for the link. I did see that before, and I note that the poster claims I don’t know even remedial astronomy yet provides not a single piece of evidence for this. It’s also rich since my argument is that the argument in Zeitgeist and by Acharya does not fit what we know from astronomy as well as astrology and history. Perhaps there will be an actual argument against what I said, but that doesn’t look likely to happen soon.

  2. Have you checked the fall birth of Christ. It is believed by Messianics the Christ was conceived on the Sabbath of Hanukkah as the dedication and festival of light (conception, light, Spirit connection in six BC. That would put His birth in Spetember of 5 BC on Trumpets or Feast of Tabernacles annual sabbath because Jesus says He is the Lord of the Sabbath. I have 3 articles on His birth in the Fall of 5 BC. That lines up with a lunar eclipse you mentioned.
    Jardalkal at for articles.

  3. Hi Gilgamesh,
    I am a friend of Pier Tulip (although I not agree with his astroteological mythicism). I want to show you the study of another italian friend about a different timeline derived from the Bible.

    This is only the first part of his research: what I learned from it is that there is another apologist, Theodoret of Cyrus ( ) that created another chronology ex novo from Biblical prophecies, placing artificially the date of Jesus death in 35 CE (something of similar to your study about the different dates of the same event, by Talmud, by Ireneus, etc.).
    It may therefore be of interest to you.

    anyway, thanks you for your blog,

    best wishes,

  4. Good evening, i’m Giovanni and the blog is mine. Giuseppe had mentioned it and you, Gilgamesh, today read the post. I tink the best way for proving the he goodness of my study is The VAT 4956 and calculate the thirty-seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. My study says 486 B.C. I’d be really curious to see if, with a constant D lunar smooth and natural, was confirmed. There currently the thirty-seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is calculated in 567 BC, but with a constant D crazy, as evidenced by R. Newton

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s