. . . I do not object to the fact
that αστηρ can also mean “planet,” and any
generic statement about the fact that both meanings are also possible (“star”
and “planet”) in the singular is formally correct. But this possibility
does not imply that the true percentage can be distinguished at a rate such as
50% (“star”) and 50% (“planet”) with respect to all of the attested
occurrences, as a non-specialist could deduce from a brief description of the
linguistic data. In fact, I must still underline the presence of a serious
problem: the meaning “planet” is surely the second choice and not the first
one; “planet” is clearly a secondary meaning, because the semantic association
with a planetary body denominated “planet” was a later phenomenon, due to the
(later) sharp distinction between wandering stars and “fixed” stars.
Historically, αστηρ was a very ancient word of
Indo-European origin, basically meaning “star” or “bright astral body;” and, as
had already happened in a Mesopotamia with Sum. MUL or Akk. Kakkabu, a
star could also be that of such and such a god, so that it eventually
corresponded, according to our modern taxonomy (and also to the Greek one), to
a “planet.” Thus, the meaning “planet” is possible and eventually frequent in
contexts where we expect to find planets, i.e., where this distinction is
relevant. When I have insisted (and still insist) on a statistical analysis of
the occurrences, I did so because I wanted to see fitting and clear quotations
from passages where this secondary meaning was not a priori expected or
required. If one can show an astrological text in which a planet is simply
named αστηρ, we could easily agree, of
course; but this document remains a professional text, not an everyday novel or
a non-astronomical treaty. Before concluding, I want to call attention to a
further paradox; if we theoretically assume that αστηρ might (not only in the singular
in Matthew 2, but at this point, we could say, in any literary Greek text) have
two possible and equally appropriate meanings—that is, “star” and “planet”—it
remains in any case clear that this distinction was not interesting or
pertinent for the author of the gospel himself. In fact, if the author had
desired to inform us that this precise αστηρ was really a planet (and not a star), he would have been
compelled to follow a different path: a) using the common word for “planet;” 2)
adding the proper name of the planet, thus referring to its divine patron; or
3) using the scientific denomination for it—all solutions which were at his
disposal. If the evangelist knew the secret of the planetary identification,
why should he have occulted it rather than offering a clearer description of
the facts? But he did not take advantage of any of these possibilities; in
fact, no one among then ever-ending generations of Christian interpreters understood
this obvious (?) fact (if this was actually the evangelist’s true desire).
Furthermore, if one makes reference to a planet, this reference should be
logically pertinent and informative. Contrariwise, in the use of Matthew 2, αστηρ offers no information from the
strict astronomical point of view, apart from the fact that the text states
that an imprecise astral body rose, that at a certain moment it disappeared,
and that it again become visible. Ny using external, a priori
hypotheses, by forcing the syntax and the semantics of the text, we can propose
sensational solutions, but these go against the evidence of the other ancient
sources. If the evangelist adopted an unmarked word for a bright astral body
(i.e., “star” or “planet,” but more probably the first one, for all the
above-mentioned reasons) it means that, also in the (most improbable) case, the
body could have really been a “planet,” appearing as a bright star in the
vision of an evangelist completely ignorant of positional astronomy; for him,
the most important thing was just the visions of a brilliant “thing” moving and
rising in the sky. In fact, if we cannot distinguish which planet was meant,
the information is unimportant. On the other hand, if the evangelist knew its
exact identity and had desired to inform his readers that what had appeared was
in fact a planet, he should have helped his more ignorant brethren, adding at
least a minimum of information. In the way in which the text appears, the
choice of the translation “planet” (and the suggestion that this could be a
fitting translation in such a framework) remains very weak and ungrounded—not
only in my opinion, but in the millennia-long tradition of confessional and
non-confessional scholars, ancient and modern, who simply took the easiest
solution as the correct one. (Antonio Panaino, “Pre-Islamic Iranian Astral
Mythology, Astrology, and the Star of Bethlehem,” in The Star of Bethlehem
and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near
East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy, ed. Peter Barthel and
George van Kooten [Leiden: Brill, 2015], 250-51 n. 71)
αστηρ (Matt
2:2, 7, 9, 10)
Molnar wants the Greek noun αστηρ (aster) in the singular,
without further determination (such as ‘of Jupiter’), to mean “planet” and to
refer to Jupiter. This meaning is certainly possible in ancient astrological
texts. There are plenty of generally phrased astrological rules saying that if
‘any planet’ is in this or that zodiacal sign or in aspect with the Sun or fulfills
yet another astrological condition, the outcome will be such and such; or,
again generally phrased, that the planet (αστηρ) that holds a certain dignity in
a chart (one which can by definition only be held by planets, not by fixed
stars) will bring about this or that outcome. [197] The same meaning (‘planet’)
is also attested in astronomical texts. However, one will not find occurrences
of αστηρ in the singular and without
further determination (such as ‘of Jupiter’) meaning ‘planet’ outside the field
of technical writings on astronomy and astrology. If one wishes to claim its
presence in a biblical texts such as Matthew’s with any degree of plausibility,
one must demonstrate that the context contains at least one clear technical
term pertaining to astronomy or astrology. This is impossible . . . As a
consequence, the only plausible interpretation of αστηρ is that it has the general
meaning “star.” The addition of the possessive pronoun in Matt 2:2 (αυτου τον αστερα, “his star”) is probably a
reference to the widespread popular ancient belief that each human being had
his or her individual star. (Stephan Heilen, “The Star of Bethlehem and
Greco-Roman Astrology, Especially Astrological Geography,” in ibid., 344-45)
[197] Examples: Ptolemy, Apotel. 4.4.2 ο μεν
ουν της πραξεως την οικοδεσποτειαν αστηρ λαβων ουτως διακριθησεται κτλ. Valens, Ath. 1.1.40 ουτος γαρ ο αστηρ (i.e., Marcy, whose name had been mentioned 15 lines earlier).
Antigonus of Nicaea (second century CE), quoted by Hephaestio, Apotel. 2.18.14 εαν δε η ‘Αφροδιτη συν τινι αστερι παρη κτλ. Paul of Alexandria, Intr. 18 (p. 39.7 Boer) ει μεν γαρ σθναφην
την τριγωνικην η την απορροιαν την τριγωνικην εχει η Σεληνη προς τινα αστερα
κτλ. Ibid. 417.17 εαν τις αστηρ εν οικω ιδιω ων και
βλεπων τον ωροσκοπον και των Σεληνην η κτλ. (p. 369.13 Pingree) (Ibid., 344)
