Magi guided by prophecy of Balaam and by Venus
Part Two:
Some more favouring of Venus for Star
“It is surprising that a writer like Molnar recognises that the text speaks of a heliacal rising, and of retrograde motion, but then mistakes these clear indications for Venus and insists on Jupiter”.
Dieter Koch
Dieter Koch has, in his compelling article “The Star of Bethlehem”, assembled a strong series of arguments in favour of Venus as the ‘Star’ of the Magi. See e.g. his chapters:
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF VENUS IN ANCIENT TIMES (pp. 222-);
VENUS AS THE STAR OF THE MESSIAH IN ANCIENT ISRAEL (pp. 248-)
On p. 101 Dieter Koch will prefer Venus over the often-fancied Jupiter:
Most writers consider Jupiter to be the Star of the Messiah. However, after the previous discussion, Jupiter clearly cannot be considered. Immediately after mentioning the heliacal rising, Matthew speaks of the retrograde motion and only then of a station. In the case of Jupiter the reverse is the case. At its heliacal rising it moves directly and takes four months until it becomes stationary. It becomes retrograde only then. And then it takes another couple of months until it becomes stationary again and resumes its direct motion. As has been stated already, it is improbable that the Holy Family would have remained in Bethlehem this long! It is surprising that a writer like Molnar recognises that the text speaks of a heliacal rising, and of retrograde motion, but then mistakes these clear indications for Venus and insists on Jupiter. The question to be answered by Molnar is: Where does the text mention the first station of Jupiter, which would have had to have taken place before its retrograde motion? The answer is: nowhere. It never took place, and therefore, the Star of Bethlehem cannot have been Jupiter, it must have been Venus. Jesus was born at a heliacal rising of Venus! ….
Regarding another estimation of Dieter Koch’s, however, concerning Daniel 9:24-27’s ‘70 Weeks’ “that the 490 years very roughly ended in the time of Jesus”:
There is talk of “70 weeks”, reckoned from an edict of a Persian king by which he commanded the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple. Both Christian and Jewish traditions agree that the 70 “weeks” must be so-called “year weeks” or heptads, i.e. time units of seven years each, so that one arrives at a total of 7 x 70 = 490 years. However, the exact date of the edict is controversial. The Bible states in several places that Cyrus the Great, when he allowed the Jews to return home from their Babylonian exile in 538 BCE, also told them to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple.130 Otherwise, Daniel could refer to an edict of Darius in 521 BCE, where he confirmed the earlier edict of Cyrus and commanded that the rebuilding should be brought forward. Five years later, in 516 BCE, the temple was consecrated and the temple service begun. 131 However, some believe that the prophecy fits better with Jesus’ appearance as Messiah if 490 years of 360 days each are counted from an edict of King Artaxerxes, who in 445 BCE instructed the prophet Nehemiah to maintain Jerusalem, which apparently was in a desolate state. 132 However, by this time, the temple had long been completed and was in operation. 133 So did the edict refer to other works? Whatever solution one prefers, it is obvious that the 490 years very roughly ended in the time of Jesus.
I would now have to say very roughly, indeed, considering my more recent - albeit tentative - view, as expressed in my article:
Historical and chronological ramifications of inaccurately interpreting Daniel chapter 9
that: “My choice for the “cut off” anointed one of Daniel 9 has to be king Jehoiachin of Judah. He is “cut off” even in name in the Book of Jeremiah, which reduces his name, sans theophoric, to “Coniah” (Jeremiah 22:24-28)”.
No comments:
Post a Comment