Is There a Gospel in the Stars?
DANNY R. FAULKNER
A little more than a century ago, two books were published
that put forth the theory that God's story of redemption is revealed
in the constellations found in the sky. One was Joseph A. Seiss's
The Gospel in the Stars, published in 1882, and the other
was The Witness of the Stars by E. W. Bullinger,
published in 1893. Both have been republished and are available
from Kregel Publications. Their basic thesis is that either God
himself revealed the star patterns and their meaning to the patriarchs,
perhaps as early as Seth, or that the early patriarchs developed
the constellations to preserve and pass on what they knew of the
plan of salvation. This would have predated the giving of the
Law, and hence it would have predated any written revelation of
God (although many creationists believe that Moses edited tablets
of Genesis written by the patriarchs). Obviously, early believers
in Yahweh passed down oral traditions, and so what better object
lessons than the stars would aid this? There are many interesting
parallels between the plan of salvation and mythologies found
in the constellations. Examples would be the virgin, the ram,
the bull, various serpent-like creatures, and various strong men,
some with dual natures. It can also be conjectured that certain
star names fit with God's redemptive plan. It is argued that the
original purpose of the constellations has been perverted and
added to by pagan mythology. These books are an attempt to re-establish
the original purpose.
ARGUED FROM SILENCE
On the surface, these two works seem to be plausible, even
scholarly, but is this teaching Biblically and factually correct?
It would seem that such an important 'doctrine' (a description
used by Seiss) would be clearly taught in Scripture, but nowhere
are we told the meanings of the various star patterns that we
see. Failing any explicit teaching, at the very least one would
expect that any current thoughts at the time would have been reinforced
in the Bible. For example, the prophet Isaiah in foretelling the
virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), or Matthew in noting the fulfillment
(Matthew 1:23), would have had opportunity to compare to the sign
in the sky, but neither did. Or in giving instructions of a proper
sacrifice, would not have Moses mentioned the analogy found in
the sky? Or the New Testament discussions of Jesus' dual nature
would have been good opportunities to compare to the celestial
counterparts. In none of these cases is any mention made of the
Gospel in the sky, all the while other customs or beliefs of the
times were recorded (though not necessarily endorsed). Just one
example of extra-Biblical beliefs recorded is the alleged angelic
stirring of the pool where Jesus healed the man lame from birth
(John 5:4 Majority Text). If the constellations are a God-given
revelation, why did the Lord choose not to acknowledge this in
His Word?
While snippets of quotes by Josephus and other secular sources
are given, there is no clear historical evidence that any of this
Gospel in the stars has survived from antiquity. Both Seiss and
Bullinger credit Frances Rolleston's notes published in 1862 as
Mazzaroth: or, the Constellations as their initial inspiration,
but it appears that much of what has been written arose from the
mind of Seiss himself. We will examine the Biblical passages that
Seiss and Bullinger used to suggest the necessity of this doctrine.
It has often been said, and it is a good rule of exegesis, that
if one sees a new meaning in a Scriptural passage that no one
else has seen before, there is probably a very good reason: the
meaning is not there. Keep this in mind when we examine these.
SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS
The earliest Scripture quoted is Genesis 1:14, which tells
us that the purpose of the stars was to be 'for signs and for
seasons, and for days, and years'. Seiss points out that the meanings
of seasons, days and years are pretty straight-forward, but asks
what is meant by signs? He answers the question that they (the
stars) are to be signs of God's plan of salvation to come. But
no other commentators support this view. Furthermore, the subject
of Genesis 1:14 is the greater and lesser lights (the Sun and
Moon); the stars are mentioned in a separate context. The Sun
and Moon are used for signs in Scripture. The Apostle Peter quoted
the prophet Joel on Pentecost that in the last days 'the sun shall
be turned into darkness and the moon into blood' (Acts 2:20, Joel
2:31). Thus there is nothing in Genesis 1:14 that demands any
more than this sort of thing.
It is also asserted that Psalm 19 tells us 'the heavens declare
the glory of God', and since Romans 1:20 tells us the creation
reveals God's 'eternal power and Godhead, so that they (mankind)
are without excuse', this means that the Gospel is revealed in
the heavens. But note that these two passages very carefully proscribe
what the creation reveals. Romans tells us that there are two
things: His Godhead (His existence, His deity) and His eternal
power (presumably only a very powerful God could create all that
we see). Psalm 19 merely states that the heavens, in their marvellous
beauty, declare God's glory in His creative acts,
To come away from these passages with any more than what is explicitly
stated is to misuse them. Seiss and Bullinger claim that one can
deduce additional attributes of God, such as his holiness and
love by looking at the stars. Hugh Ross, in his book, The Fingerprint
of God, makes a similar mistake in that he lists five additional
attributes of God (for a total of seven) other than His existence
and power that one can see from the Universe using Romans 1:20
as his basis.
Nowhere in Scripture are we told that one can discern the Gospel
by studying the sky; indeed we are told that the Gospel can only
be known by the Word and by preaching (Romans 10:14). An example
of the Word and preaching working together is the interaction
of Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Furthermore, this
teaching places the constellations on an equal footing with Scripture
with regards to revelation. To elevate anything with the Bible
should make Christians pause. How is the Gospel in the stars different
from the double revelation theory, that God has revealed His Divine
nature in the natural world? Hugh Ross elevates the role of the
creation when he claims that nature is like a sixty-seventh book
of the Bible that reveals more than it does about God's attributes;
how is the Gospel in the stars different from this alleged but
untrue idea of the sixty-seventh book?
There is also the problem of certain things having significance
before their time. Despite Isaiah's foretelling, the virgin birth
was not fully understood until the writing of the Gospels. In
a similar way, despite Jesus' prediction of His death and resurrection,
His followers did not understand until after it had happened.
Before the crucifixion and resurrection, what was the significance
of the cross? None, but Seiss and Bullinger attach much predictive
significance to Crux, the Southern Cross. So what role did it
play? It could not have been a part of an Old Testament Gospel,
because crucifixion was a much later invention widely used by
the Romans, and so would have meant nothing to the patriarchs.
And what kind of prediction would it have been, given that no
New Testament allusion is made to it? The Gospels, particularly
Matthew's, clearly note fulfillment of Old Testament predictions,
but a cross in the sky is never mentioned.
DIFFICULTIES WITH SECULAR SOURCES
Beyond the Biblical problems are difficulties with secular
sources. Most of what we know of ancient astronomy comes from
the Almagest, a second century AD book written by Claudius
Ptolemy. According to Ptolemy there were 48 constellations, 12
along the zodiac with 36 others. Seiss and Bullinger preserve
this number, but by deleting three and replacing them with three
others. The ones deleted are Corona Australis (the southern crown),
Equuleus (the small horse), and Triangulum (the triangle). The
replacements are the Bands (binding together Pisces the fish),
Coma Berenices (Bernice's hair), and Crux (the Southern Cross
mentioned earlier). The latter two are now recognised as constellations,
but are of more recent origin. Crux is sometimes attributed to
Augustin Royer in 1679, but Jakob Bartsch listed it separately
in 1624, and Emerie Mollineux illustrated Crux on a star globe
as early as 1592. On the other hand, Johann Bayer plotted Crux
only as part of Centaurus in his 1603 work Uranometria. The
addition of Crux may have been part of an attempt to depaganise
the heavens that goes back at least to the time of Bede. Coma
Berenices was suggested by Tycho Brahe a few years earlier than
Bayer, which was probably prompted by the hazy appearance of a
star cluster located there. Seiss and Bullinger claim that Coma
Berenices was originally depicted as a woman nursing a young boy,
but if that is true, it was only as a portion of Virgo.
It is also claimed that Crux was an ancient constellation that
was once visible from north temperate latitudes, but due to an
effect called precession ceased to be visible. It is further asserted
that as navigators sailed southward 500 years ago it was rediscovered.
Ptolemy supposedly deleted Crux from more ancient star catalogues
because he could not see it. This 'history' is probably suggested
by the fact that Crux began to appear on star charts 500 years
ago, but does the fact that we do not know who originated it mean
that it must be of ancient origin? This claim is seriously undermined
when one realises that almost all of what we know of ancient astronomy
came through Ptolemy, since copies of earlier manuscripts have
not survived. Seiss and Bullinger substitute conjecture for evidence
of Ptolemy's deletion, because there is absolutely no evidence
that the ancients named this constellation.
This criticism was made against Seiss' thesis even before it was
published. This and other criticisms caused enough concern for
Seiss to insert a supplement in his book where he dealt with them.
He appealed to Ptolemy to justify his case:
'Ptolemy himself also confesses that in the tables and charts
presented by him liberties were taken to chan e fig4res and the
places of stars in them ... Whether, therefore, the Southern
Cross belongs to the ancient forty-eight constellations or not
cannot be determined from its absence from the Ptolemaic tables,
as that can argue nothing for or against the assertion that it
does so belong, apart from other showings. "
This is a remarkable admission. Seiss cannot prove that Ptolemy
deleted the Southern Cross, so his entire argument is conjecture
based upon Ptolemy's vague statement. The references that Seiss
quotes after this are irrelevant in that they are equally vague
and post-date Ptolemy by many centuries. This episode underscores
the whole foundation of the Gospel in the stars - conjecture and
plausibility. It could be true, but no positive evidence of its
existence is given.
What of the claim that Ptolemy and Hipparchus could not see Crux?
It is true that this part of the sky was once visible from the
latitudes where the ancients observed, and that precession has
caused this part of the sky to be lost today at these latitudes.
In contradiction to clear statements by Seiss, the stars of the
Southern Cross would have been visible (though low in the sky)
to both Hipparchus and Ptolemy. For instance, calculation shows
that at the time of Hipparchus (140 BC) and from his location
on the island of Rhodes, the southernmost star of the Southern
Cross, cc Crucis, attained an altitude of about Y above the horizon.
For comparison, where I live the star Canopus only gets 3' above
the horizon, but it is an easily spotted object on most winter
nights. When Ptolemy observed in Alexandria about 140 AD, a
Crucis would have reached about 9' above the horizon. The other
stars of the Southern Cross would have been even higher, making
this group of stars quite visible with only a little difficulty.
At earlier epochs these stars would have been higher in the sky
and hence were more obvious, but they hardly were a faint memory
at the time of Ptolemy. So the contention of Seiss and Bullinger
that Ptolemy deleted the Southern Cross because he could not see
it is simply not tenable. Secular authorities on constellations
state that the ancients did see the stars of the Southern Cross,
but always considered what is called Crux today as part of constellation
Centaurus. It is not clear where Seiss and Bullinger got their
bogus history.
STAR NAMES AND MEANINGS
Further problems develop when one examines the star names
and the meanings ascribed by Seiss and Bullinger. The standard
source for this sort of thing is Richard Hinckley Allen's Star
Names; Their Lore and Meaning, published in 1899 and available
in paperback from Dover since 1963. (By the way, Allen mentions
Seiss's and Rolleston's works in unflattering terms.) For example,
Zuben el Chamali and Zuben el Genubi mean 'northern claw' and
'southern claw' respectively, because some cultures considered
these stars in Libra to be the claws of Scorpius the scorpion,
which is a nearby constellation. Bullinger has these two names
meaning 'the price which covers' and 'the purchase' or 'the price
which is deficient'. The bright star Deneb marks the tail of Cygnus
the swan. Its name means 'tail', which can be verified with anyone
who knows Arabic, but Bullinger renders its meaning to be 'the
judge'. A more embarrassing example are the two brightest stars
in the constellation Delphinus, Svalocin and Rotanev, which Rolleston
rendered Scalooin and Rotaneb. These two star names are not ancient,
but instead began appearing on star charts in 1814. Many years
ago it was discovered that these two star names are 'Nicolaus
Venator' spelled backwards. Venator, a Russian, was assistant
to the great Italian astronomer Giuseppe Piazzi, and is often
referred to by the Latin equivalent, Niccolo Cacciatore. These
two star names seem to have surfaced in Italy during their lifetimes,
though it is not known who placed them there. Rolleston somehow
managed to find meanings for these names in Arabic, Syriac, and
Chaldean. These are only a few examples, but there are many others.
Unfortunately, neither Rolleston, Seiss or Bullinger give clear
references for their word studies. It is possible that they simply
looked for Hebrew or Chaldaic words that had similar sounds.
INFERIOR AND NOT NEEDED
The frustrating thing is that both Seiss's and Bullinger's
books seem so scholarly that many may take their work as definitive.
Simply put, we do not know who invented the constellations or
what purpose or purposes they fulfilled. It has been suggested
that they were early navigation aids, or were to mark locations
of the equinoxes and solstices that later underwent embellishment
with pagan meanings. If Seiss and Bullinger can see their religious
beliefs inscribed in the heavens, why could not other cultures?
Numerous studies have shown that the constellations are very old,
dating back to the beginning of civilization. Since this dates
to shortly after the creation, many of them could have originated
with or at the time of the early patriarchs, but this hardly identifies
the patriarchs as the source. The teaching of the Gospel in the
stars is based solely upon conjecture. It could be true, at least
in some elements, but there is no evidence that any of it is true.
Given that, it is very important that we do not elevate it above
speculation and into doctrine.
The concept of the Gospel in the stars actually undercuts itself.
The conjecture is that before the Bible was given, the patriarchs
needed some way to pass along spiritual knowledge and that the
constellations were the vehicle to do this. It should be obvious
that this method of revelation and preservation, being subject
to misunderstanding (much garbling of the original message is
acknowledged by its proponents), is vastly inferior to the revealed
Word. If this line of reasoning is correct, then when the Bible
was revealed to man, the stellar Gospel ceased to serve
a purpose - it had been supplanted by something better. In this
late age why would we want to return to such an imperfect vehicle?
Does this alleged Gospel in the stars have any significance for
us today?
CONCLUSIONS
The Gospel in the stars is such a positive-sounding teaching
that it has much appeal. Several arguments have been presented
here against its acceptance. First, it is based entirely upon
conjecture and presented as a feasibility, but with no real evidence.
Second, it contains numerous factual errors which raise serious
credibility problems. Third, it is extrabiblical in that it presents
a doctrine that is nowhere taught in Scripture, though there are
many passages in the Bible that provide ample opportunities. Fourth,
by its very premise, the Gospel in the stars has no relevance
for those who possess the Bible, God's completed revelation.
But there is a final, very serious objection to the Gospel in
the stars: it goes beyond being extrabiblical into being unbiblical.
The New Testament refers to the Gospel as a 'mystery' (I Corinthians
2:7, Ephesians 6:19, 3:8-12, Colossians 4:3). In the New Testament
a mystery is something that was previously unknown, but has now
been revealed to us. Romans 16:25, 26 states that this mystery
was hidden for long ages and was revealed through prophetic writings
(that is, in the Old Testament, not in the stars). I Corinthians
2:8 goes on to tell us that if the princes of this world would
have known of this mystery, 'they ,would not have crucified the
Lord of glory'. I Peter 1: 1012 suggests that while the prophets
'searched diligently' they failed to grasp fully the Gospel before
its time. Genesis teaches us that the patriarchs knew that God
required a blood sacrifice, but apparently had no idea of what
God's full plan of redemption would be. If they would have known
the full plan as Bullinger and Seiss would have it, then this
knowledge would have been available to the princes of this world,
and there would have been no crucifixion of Jesus, So the Gospel
in the stars is in direct contradiction to the clear teaching
of I Corinthians 2:8. In his second epistle, Peter (1:16-21) cautions
us about cleverly -devised fables. His message here relied upon
two solid foundations:
(1) the eyewitness account of his legitimate experience at the
transfiguration, and
(2) more importantly, the testimony of Scripture.
The Gospel in the stars does not seem to fit into either solid
foundation, but instead appears to be a fable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the Rev. Tom Chesko of El Cajon, California,
for his encouragement to write this article, his proofreading
of the first draft, and for his helpful suggestions that greatly
strengthened the paper.
REFERENCE
I .Seiss, J. A., 1882. The Gospel in the Stars, Kregel Publications,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 170.
Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (math), M.S. (physics), M.A. and
Ph.D. (astronomy, Indiana University). He is Associate Professor
at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster, where he teaches
physics and astronomy. He has published about two dozen papers
in various astronomy and astrophysics journals.
COMMENT - CARL WIELAND
Dr Faulkner makes some very important points on this subject
of the Gospel in the stars, particularly about the danger of looking
for an 'extra' revelation. However, I am concerned that we might
'throw out the baby with the bathwater' before it has been more
thoroughly explored. For the sake of launching further discussion,
therefore, let me take a (friendly) adversarial stance to some
of his.
He asks, 'If the constellations are a God-given revelation,
why did the Lord choose not to acknowledge this in his Word?'
However, this overlooks what I have always understood to be
the most interesting suggestion as to why many of the stars appear
to have had names in antiquity which so often seem to have a connection
to the Gospel. That is, that the stars were named by God
(Psalm 147:4 says 'he calleth them all by their names' - see also
Isaiah 40:26) to provide a basic outline of the Gospel message,
which was intended to be replaced by the complete and sufficient
written Word of God in due course. The star names would have served
as a mnemonic for oral transmission, perhaps because of restricted
availability of any written records.
In this view, the purpose of forensic enquiry in our day into
the tantalising piecemeal evidence remaining would not be to seek
additional revelation to add to or complement the Bible, but in
order to be able to have another weapon in the armoury of Christian
apologetics.
The concept of such a proto-Gospel may not be as radical as it
seems. Remember that many people would have lived and died from
the time of the Fall to when even the Old Testament canon was
complete. Such a mnemonic may have served to reduce the likelihood
that any oral hand-me-downs corrupted the basic message. The fact
that such a primeval hint at the coming Saviour would be greatly
lacking in detail, and not fully understood by its recipients,
would not prevent some people from being able to get the basic
idea that God wanted them to have. If such were not even allowed
as a possibility, we would wonder why God gave the protevangel
(in Genesis 3:15, about the coming seed of the woman), since,
this too would have been rather cryptic from the standpoint of
someone living prior to the Redeemer's first advent.
Danny Faulkner writes that Psalm 19 'merely states that the
heavens, in their marvellous beauty, declare God's glory in His
creative acts' (emphasis mine). One would of course not wish
to read into Scripture more than is intended. However, the idea
that the beauty of the stars is being referred to in the
Psalm is itself an inference (albeit an obvious one to draw) -
the passage nowhere mentions their beauty. In fact, verses 2-4a
do seem to support (though not demand) the notion that the stars
have an actual message which is more than a poetic description
of their beauty. Strong proponents of the 'Gospel in the stars'
concept might also want to ask the question; if Psalm 19 really
does have nothing to do with the Zodiac/Mazzaroth (which is the
list of constellations through which the Sun makes its annual
circuit), why do verses 4b-6 refer to this very fact, that is,
the Sun making a circuit through the 'tabernacle' of the stars?
This would seem a remarkable coincidence, at least.
In the last few years, whenever asked about the 'Gospel in the
stars' question, I have consistently maintained that there needed
to be an independent check on the reliability of the stars names
cited by Bullinger and others. We have actually looked for someone
willing to spend the time going back to the original secular sources
in each case.
The Faulkner article does not claim to have checked out anywhere
near all the relevant star names. Nevertheless, he has made a
very important contribution, by showing some of the serious factual
errors involved. While this should sound loud warning bells, until
someone has carefully checked many more of the claims made by
Bullinger et al., it might be unwise to dismiss them all.
It is possible that, having become excited by the many obvious
links there were, they became over-enthusiastic in finding names
and links which were simply not there.
If the concept is just plain wrong, we should discard it, no matter
how it might have once seemed to us. However, it would be very
unfortunate if the Christian creationist/ apologetics community
did this prematurely. I am hopeful that contributions by others
will make it easier to decide one way or the other.
CEN Tech. J., vol. 12, no. 2, 1998