A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume 1 (of 2) / During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era

by Lynn Thorndike

Gregory of Nyssa also composed a treatise, entitled Against Fate,[2040] in the form of a disputation between a pagan philosopher and himself at Constantinople in 382 A. D. His opponent holds that the life of man is determined by the constellations at his nativity, upon whose decree even conversion to Christianity would thus be made dependent. Gregory assumes the position of one hitherto ignorant of the principles of the art of astrology, of which the philosopher has to inform him, but on general grounds it seems very unlikely that he really was as ignorant as this of such a widespread superstition. Furthermore, he is sufficiently read in the subject to incorporate some of Bardesanes’ arguments, of whose treatise both Gregory’s title and dialogue form are reminiscent. Some of Gregory’s reasoning, however, might well be that of a tyro and is scarcely worth elaborating here.

Astrology and the birth of Christ.

When the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew included the story of the wise men from the east who had seen the star, there can be little or no doubt that he inserted it and that it had been formulated in the first place, not merely in order to satisfy the ordinary, unlearned reader with portents connected with the birth of Jesus, but to secure the appearance of support for the kingship of Jesus from that art or science of astrology which so many persons then held in high esteem. To an age whose sublimest science was star-gazing it would seem fitting and almost inevitable that God should have announced the coming of the Prince of Peace in this manner, and the account in the Gospel of Matthew is in a sense an attempt to present the birth of Christ in a way to comply with the most searching tests of contemporary science. But the early Christians were relatively rude and unlettered, and this effort to construct a royal horoscope for Jesus is a crude and faulty one from the astrological standpoint. For this, however, the author of the Gospel and not the art of astrology is obviously responsible. As a result, however, of the Gnostic reaction against astrological fatalism or of an orthodox Christian opposition to both Gnostics and astrologers, most of the early fathers of the church denied that this passage implied any recognition of the truth of astrology and attempted to explain away its obvious meaning. In doing this they often made the crude and imperfect astrology of the Gospel a criterion for criticizing the art of astrology itself.

Chrysostom on the star of the Magi.

Of patristic commentaries upon the passage in the Gospel of Matthew dealing with the Magi and the star of Bethlehem one of the fullest and most frequently cited by medieval writers is that attributed to Chrysostom. I say “attributed,” because in addition to his genuine sixth homily upon Matthew[2041] there was generally ascribed to Chrysostom in the middle ages another homily which is extant only in Latin[2042] and has been thought to be the work of some Arian. The famous St. John Chrysostom was born at Antioch about 347 A. D. and there studied rhetoric under the noted sophist Libanius. From 398 to 404 he held the office of patriarch of Constantinople; then he was exiled to Cappadocia where he died in 407. One detail of his boyhood may be noted because of its connection with magic. When he was a lad, the tyrants in the city became suspicious of plots against them and sent soldiers to search for books of magic and sorcery. One of the men who was arrested and put to death had tried to rid himself of the damaging possession of a book of magic by throwing it into the river. Chrysostom and a playmate later unsuspectingly fished an object out of the water which turned out to be this very book, and when a soldier happened to pass by just then, they were very frightened lest he should see what they had and they should be severely punished for it.[2043]

Sixth homily on Matthew.

In his sixth homily upon Matthew Chrysostom recognizes the difficulties presented by the Scriptural account of the Magi and the star, and approaches the task of expounding it with prayers to God for aid. Some, he informs us, take the passage as an admission of the truth of astrology. It is this opinion which he is concerned to refute. He argues that it is not the function of astronomy to learn from the stars who are being born but merely to predict from the hour of birth what is going to happen, which seems a quite fallacious distinction upon his part. He also criticizes the Magi for calling Jesus the king of the Jews, when as Christ told Pilate His kingdom was not of this world. He further criticizes them for coming to Christ’s birthplace when they might have known that it would cause difficulties with Herod, the existing king, and for coming, making trouble, and then immediately going back home again. But these shortcomings would seem to be those of the Scriptural narrative rather than of the art of astrology, although of course Chrysostom is trying to make the point that the Magi had not foreseen what would happen to themselves. He further argues that the star of Bethlehem was not like other stars nor even a star at all,[2044] as was proved by its peculiar itinerary, its shining by day, its rare intelligence in hiding itself at the right time, and its miraculous ability in standing over the head of the child. Chrysostom therefore concludes that some invisible virtue put on the form of a star. He thinks that the star appeared to the Magi as a reflection upon the Jews, who had rejected prophet after prophet, whereas the apparition of a single star was sufficient to bring barbarian Magi to the feet of Christ. At the same time he believes that God especially favored the Magi in vouchsafing them a star, a sign to which they were accustomed, as the mode of announcement. Thus he comes dangerously near to admitting tacitly what he has just been denying, namely, that the stars are signs of the future and that there is something in the art of astrology. In short, the star appeared to the Magi because they as astrologers would comprehend its meaning. Chrysostom denies this openly and does his best to think up arguments against it, but he cannot rid his subconscious thought of the idea.

The spurious homily.

The other homily ascribed to Chrysostom repeats some of the points made in the genuine homily, but adds others. The preacher has read somewhere, perhaps in Origen where we have already met the suggestion, that the Magi had learned that the star would appear from the books of the diviner Balaam, “whose divination is also put into the Old Testament: ‘A star shall arise from Jacob and a man shall come forth from Israel, and he shall rule all nations.’” But the preacher does not state why it is any better to have such a prediction made by a diviner than by an astrologer. The preacher has also heard some cite a writing, which is not surely authentic but yet is not destructive to the Faith and rather pleasing, to the effect that in the extreme east on the shores of the ocean live a people who possess a writing inscribed with the name of Seth and dealing with the appearance of this star and the gifts to be offered. This writing was handed down from father to son through successive generations, and twelve of the most studious men of their number were chosen to watch for the coming of the star, and whenever one died, another was chosen in his place. They were called Magi in their language because they glorified God silently. Every year after the threshing of the harvest they climbed a mountain to a cave with delightful springs shaded by carefully selected trees. There they washed themselves and for three days in silence prayed and praised God. Finally one year the star appeared in the form of a little child with the likeness of a cross above it; and it spoke with them and taught them and instructed them to set out for Judea.[2045] When they had set out, it went before them for two years, during which time food and drink were never lacking in their wallets. On their return they worshiped and glorified God more sedulously than ever and preached to their people. Finally, after the resurrection, the apostle Thomas visited that region and they were baptized by him and were made his assistant preachers. This tale is indeed pleasing enough, and it saves the Magi from all imputation of magic arts and employment of demons and even denies that they were astrologers. But as a device to escape the natural inference from the Gospel story that the birth of Christ was announced by the stars and in a way which astronomers could comprehend it is certainly far-fetched, and shows how Christian theologians were put to it to find a way out of the difficulty. The homily goes on to advance some of the usual arguments against astrology, such as that the stars cannot cause evil, that the human will is free, and that a science of individual horoscopes cannot account for all men worshiping idols before Christ and abandoning idolatry and other ancient customs thereafter, or for the perishing in the deluge of all men except the family of Noah, or for national customs such as circumcision among the Jews and incest among the Persians. Here we again probably see the influence of Bardesanes.

Number, names, and home of the Magi.