This should be read as something of a footnote to my previous article on the magi. Ferrari d’Occhieppo was a well-known astronomer and his work on the Star of Bethlehem became the foundation of a theory that is seldom questioned. It is satisfying mostly because it is rooted in the notion that Jesus was to be the harbinger of the Age of Pisces. I came upon this theory after I wrote my last article on the magi and believe it merits some response.
I personally find several reasons to questions this classic attempt to discover the birthdate for Jesus using astronomy as well as astrology. It has a very rationally basis on the Superior Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn which occur approximately every 20 years. The observation of the Superior Conjunction was ancient by the time the magi would have seen this one. They are considered important markers for change, including social and regime change.
To some extent, we’re comparing apples to oranges. The article I wrote was designed to discover what the magi probably saw when they spoke of the Star in the East which would lead to the King of the Jews. The article under review purports to discover the birth of Jesus. Surely the two events were significantly far apart if the magi came from what is now Iran. Nevertheless, the two events are obviously connected.
This is the ‘classic’ theory of Ferrari d’Occhieppo (1969) – Hughes (1979) – Seymour (1998), compiled by Bernadette Brady:
“.Jesus was born on September 15, 7 B.C. at around 6 pm in Bethlehem, under the opposition of the Sun in Virgo to the conjunction Jupiter-Saturn at its rising. This assumption explains the words of the magi to Herod: ‘We saw his star at its rising’, which supports the supposition that this ‘star’ had not yet disappeared and that it could be observed again, and the enigmatic metaphor of the Immaculate Conception (the text of the Gospel ‘born of a virgin’ could be read rather ‘born in the sign of Virgo’). The simultaneity of the astronomical event occurred with the arrival of the Messiah, king of the Jews (Jupiter, the royal planet, beneficial, in conjunction with Saturn, the planet of the Jews). The symbol of Pisces would have been preserved as a form of recognition and a rallying sign for the first Christian communities. ”
The underlying assumptions strike me as bold, compelling and for the most part, speculative. The insistence of the Conjunction in Pisces overrides any other considerations in the charts, save the alleged reference to the Sun in Virgo not only as indicative of the virgin birth but perhaps the very meaning of it. Having said that the idea that there are some elements of the Jewish community which would interpret the co-joining of the star of Kings, Jupiter, with Saturn, the star of the Jews as a clear sign of the coming of the promised king.
Although it is not entirely impossible that the Sun in Virgo refers to ‘born of a Virgin’ one would have to run roughshod over a great deal of established theology. It takes as virtual fact that the entire event might be an example of astrotheology, wherein all the players take a symbolic role that can be described by the planets and luminaries themselves. At this point in time, such claims can only be considered as speculative. We have no evidence of this, either way. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Secondly, let’s look at the Superior Conjunction referred to. It occurred 10 Sep 7 – 28 Sep 7- 3 Dec 7 19 Dec 7. There is no doubt that the magi would be very familiar with the Conjunctions as indicators in Mundane astrology. However, they are considered most significant when there is a change in Triplicity. The previous had been in Leo. We are still left, though, with the Conjunction being the only provable element.
The theory goes on to mention the Essenes. I also commented on some elements of the Essenes and pointed out that they had at least as much to do with the Zoroastrian magi as the Jews. certainly, they were not associated with mainstream Judaism. I do not doubt that this connection should be considered, but so should a very great number of factors.
When all is said and done, I feel even more convinced that the chart I offered in the previous article fits more exactly and for multiple reasons the star in the east seen by the magi. Nevertheless, I admire the work and passion that went the construction of this theory and believe it may raise many questions deserving of research.
The complete text of the article in question is in French @ http://cura.free.fr/16christ.html Feb, 2002