THE TWO JESUS BOYS
Historical grail research is also capable of throwing light on the
historic life of Christ. In our research report "Wolfram von
Eschenbach and the Reality of the Grail", we have assumed out of
conviction and therefore as a matter of course that the great
conjunction of the year 7 BC represents that event which Matthew
describes in the second chapter of his Gospel as the Star of the Wise
Men or Magi from the East, and that the first repetition of this
great conjunction in the year 848 marks the date that Parzival became
King of the Grail. Objections have been made against this "belief'.
The objection was not that these two conjunctions took place. If
anyone were to make such a claim, he would have to be told that he
does not know the laws of astronomy.
There are, however, additional grounds for rejecting the cosmic
connection between the Star of Bethlehem and the Star of
Munsalvaesche. It is said, for example, that the great conjunction in
the year 7 BC could in no way be the Star of Bethlehem, because
Jesus, as everybody knows, was not born in the year 7 BC, but in the
What are we now to make of this other "belief?
The first astronomer in modem times who drew attention to the great
conjunction in the year 7 BC as the Star of Bethlehem was Johannes
Kepler. He recognized in this stellar event that celestial occurrence
which the evangelist Matthew describes as the cosmic accompaniment to
the birth of Jesus. The Three Magi directed their gaze towards a
stellar event in the heavens during the time of His birth. Kepler
interpreted the corresponding passage in the Gospel of Matthew
astronomically. He also admittedly supposed that at the same time a
new star, a Nova, could have appeared, because a Nova he had observed
himself in the year 1604, came after a
Modem astronomy confirms Kepler's evaluation of the great conjunction
six years before Christ and its connection with the Star of
Bethlehem, but rejects a Nova.
Since the discovery of a Babylonian clay tablet in the British Museum
(information Kc.35429) on which the detailed phases of the great
conjunction (which the Magi followed) are drawn, there can be no more
doubt as to the validity of Kepler's astronomical interpretation of
the Nativity of the Matthew Jesus.
If this date of birth is used as a starting point, then all of
Matthew's information falls into place with the historical-political
conditions in the Jerusalem of that time. Everything has its historic
veracity. The Gospel of Matthew appears to be true. The only
discrepancy consists in the fact that our calendar does not begin
until six and a half years later.
But also Luke describes the birth of a Jesus. One cannot say the
birth of Jesus. What he says is on all points contradictory to what
Matthew says. Luke describes completely different conditions. Herod
is long since dead. There is no mention of child-murder und the
parents of Jesus live in Nazareth, while the parents of the Jesus
described by Matthew were inhabitants of Bethlehem.
The parents of the Jesus of Nazareth return after the time of
purification without any hindrance to Jerusalem to present their boy
in the temple, while the parents of the Jesus of Bethlehem flee into
Egypt and stay there until the political conditions in Jerusalem have
Considered by itself, the description of the Nativity by Luke is also
intrinsically consistent. It does not contradict recorded history.
The Nativity is moreover approximately in line with our calendar.
Hence the Gospel of Luke also appears to be true. Both gospels can
however only be simultaneously true, if they speak of two different
Nativities occurring at different times in Bethlehem. But just this
is - after almost 2000 years - in no way officially recognized to be
so in Christendom. Both descriptions, which considered by themselves
are historically plausible, are mutually contradictory, because Luke
describes the Nativity in such a way that it must have taken place
historically 5 to 6 years after the Nativity described by Matthew.
This contradiction has for centuries been the greatest riddle in
Gospel Research and still remains so far and wide.
I am of the opinion that this main polemical question within Gospel
Research has completely been resolved in the year 1909 by Rudolf
Steiner, who indicated that at that time TWO boys named Jesus were
born in Bethlehem.(f.9) The evangelists Matthew and Luke do not
describe one and the same Nativity from two different points of view,
but clearly two different Nativities altogether.
One of the births took place before Herod's death, while the other
one occurred later. All apparent contradictions in the two Nativities
disappear, if we recognize this discovery by Rudolf Steiner to the
full. One thousand nine hundred and nine years after the birth of
Christ, Rudolf Steiner revealed the true history of this Nativity and
made it accessible to human understanding. This is, considered
historically, the first spiritual gift from Christ who at that time
became active in the etheric realm. It is no coincidence that this
revelation occurred in that particular geo" graphical area, namely
Basle (Switzerland), which was also the theater for the Grail events
in the ninth century. (F.10)
If only the fact is taken note of that two Jesus boys were born, but
not recognized that their difference in age amounted to several
years, then the incompatible chronological differences continue to
exist. In that sense we admittedly learned an interesting supplement
to the Nativity, but this addition to our knowledge is not of vital
importance to our historic understanding of the Gospels, because the
chronological contradictions that are preventing the true Nativity of
Christendom from being recognized are not diminished, but augmented
Through his discovery of the two Jesus boys, Rudolf Steiner
conclusively demonstrated the truth of the two Nativities, which
would otherwise have remained completely contradictory. This
demonstration of the truth would however be overruled, were the
difference in age between, the two Jesus boys to amount to only a few
It is worthwhile to ponder over this question in all its
consequences. Four different opinions or thought patterns are
A. It is said that only one Jesus was born, namely the one described
by Matthew. This Nativity, so it is argued, proves to be more
convincing than the one described by Luke. Objections raised from the
position of the Gospel of Luke against the interpretation that the
great conjunction is a sign of the birth of the Messiah are refuted
by the most distinguished exponent. of the Matthew story in the
following way: (f.11)
1. Form and content of the periscope (Matt. 2. 1-12) give rise to the
supposition that the personal report from the Magi, only slightly
changed by the evangelist, stems from another source.
2. From the regained knowledge of the late Babylonian astronomy there
results a factual view of the so often misunderstood sayings about
the star. Not a trace of anything legendary re mains.
3. The rising of the star at night and its position while standing
still, strongly emphasized by the Periscope, can be identified as two
phases of the planet Jupiter, which are exactly dated and described
in two clay tablets. To calculate these phases in advance and to
simultaneously have insight into the rarity of the epiphenomena -
repeated only after many centuries was only possible for very few of
the surviving astronomers in Babylon.
4. The interpretation of this celestial process as maintained by the
Magi from the Gospel can be logically deduced from the
classifications evidently found in Babylonian astrology. A certain
knowledge of biblical prophecies and political considerations could
strengthen the expectations of the Magi.
5. The astronomical dating of the Magi's journey falls within the
realm of historically accepted time frames.
6. Overall, it may be said that the Periscope in question is not to
be evaluated as a product of random literary imagination, but as a
definite historic document.
B. It is said that only one Jesus was born, namely the one described
by Luke. Only this Nativity, so it is argued, complies approximately
with the Christian calendar, and it may be assumed that those who
established the calendar certainly had good reason for fixing on
Luke. To that must be said: Luke himself gives admittedly some
indications for exactly dating his birth of Jesus. His version
however has, as long as only one birth is considered, hardly any hope
of becoming accepted next to Matthew.
Among the convinced followers of the theory that there were two Jesus
boys there are also two streams.
C. The first one argues that there were two different Nativities. The
two Jesus boys however were born only a few months after each other
and in fact at the beginning of our calendar. The Star of Bethlehem
can therefore not be identified as the great conjunction of the year
7 BC, because this conjunction did not take place in the year zero.
D. The second one argues that there were two different Nativities.
The one described by Matthew, for reasons given under A. in the year
7 BC, and the one listed under B., at the beginning of our calendar.
I am convinced that only the fourth opinion can claim to be in
harmony with all the information given by the two evangelists.
Opinion A confirms Matthew, but excludes Luke;
Opinion B confirms Luke, but excludes Matthew.
Opinion C confirms Luke, but excludes in spite of the acceptance of
the birth of a second
Jesus the Nativity by Matthew.
Opinion A is predominant today among the researchers who reckon with
only one Jesus boy. It is argued so convincingly that it can be fully
accepted by the exponent of opinion D with respect to the elder Jesus
boy. But this exponent of the opinion D reckons in addition with a
second birth, the one that Luke describes. He fixes this birth so
much later, however, that both gospels are in synchrony with
With researchers from group C and D we are exclusively dealing with
students of Rudolph Steiner, or with researchers who accept the
validity of Rudolf Steiner's research out of his own insight. Hence
it must be asked why two types of researchers, who both believe to be
in accord with Rudolf Steiner, come to two different opinions.
In order to answer this question, it is necessary to first of all
compare the two Nativities and establish how the two Gospels agree
Matthew as well as Luke describe the birth of a boy, who is a
descendant from Abraham. The family trees from Abraham to David in
both gospels are in complete agreement. What, makes examining the
identity of both family trees somewhat difficult is that the family
tree by Luke leads from David back to Abraham, respectively through
Adam back to God, while the other family tree enumerates the
generations in the opposite direction, from Abraham up to David. If
we write both family trees in the same direction, then the
correspondence until David is evident. We would therefore have to
expect, if there was only one Jesus born, correspondence as well from
David up to Joseph. After David however this correspondence is no
longer there. The line of descent from Matthew leads from David
through his son Solomon to a Joseph who lives in Bethlehem. The one
from Luke runs through Nathan, the other son from David to a Joseph
living in Nazareth. From the line of ancestors it is clearly evident
that the two Joseph's cannot be identical. Their sons too, who are
both called Jesus, are therefore two different persons. The two
wives, who are both called Maria, are two different persons as well,
for on married to a Nazarene and the other to a Bethlehemite.
From the Gospel of Matthew can be gathered that the Jesus from the
line of Solomon of the House of David was born - still within Herod's
lifetime - in Bethlehem, the home of his parents for his life was in
danger because of this. The Lukas Jesus was born later. "During the
time of Augustus" tell us nothing, for the elder Jesus was also born
during the time of Emperor Augustus, Luke, however, says that at that
time a certain Cyrenius was governor of Syria (Luke 2.2 ). The
parents of the Luke Jesus live in Nazareth in the district of
Galilee, which was part of Syria. Joseph and Maria come to their
hometown only in passing "to be taxed". There is rightly no
mention of any danger by Herod, because Cyrenius became Governor of
Syria only after Herod's death.
Completely different as well is the description of how the Nativity
became known. The Nativity by Matthew is accompanied by a "star",
which announces to the wise men from the East "that the time is
fulfilled (at hand)". These Magi come "from where the Sun rises" to
Jerusalem and inquire of Herod about the place of birth of the new
King. The Pharisees point to Bethlehem. Herod for his part wants to
know from the Magi -when the child was born.
After worshipping the Jesus from Bethlehem the Magi return, avoiding
Jerusalem, to their home country. The parents flee with the child
into Egypt and Herod orders the child-murder. That is what Matthew
reports. Kings do not come to the birth of the Luke Jesus, but
shepherds in the field, to whom; the nativty was revealed by an
Angel. The parents return home unscathed by way of Jerusalem (the
lion's den during the time of Herod) and go from there every three
years in no danger to Jerusalem for the Passover feast.
From this comparison, it is clear that in one case Herod plays a
decisive role, while in the other case there is absolutely no mention
of any danger from Herod.. Rudolf Steiner, the re-discoverer of the
two Jesus boys, indicated himself that one of the boys was born
before and the other one after the child-murder.
It should be mentioned in advance that Rudolf Steiner never gave an
exact date for the Nativity. Neither did he know yet - at the time
that the lecture was held from which the following passage is taken -
what the date of the death at the cross was: April 3, 33. In the 5th
lecture of The Gospel of St Luke, he says:
"Thus certain facts will be presented today, the consequences of-
which are indicated in the Gospels, though not the facts themselves.
Nevertheless you can put them to the test and you will find them
"The birth of the two Jesus boys were separated by a period of a few
months. But Jesus of the Gospel of Luke and John the Baptist were
both born too late to have been victims of the so-called 'massacre of
the innocents'. Has the thought never struck you that those who read
about the Bethlehem massacre must ask themselves: How could there
have been a John? But the facts can be substantiated in all respects.
Think about it: the Jesus from Matthew's Gospel was taken to Egypt by
his parents, and John, supposedly, was born shortly before or about
the same time. According to the usual view, John remained in
Palestine, but in that case he would certainly have been a victim of
Herod's murderous deed. You see how necessary it is to devote serious
thought to these things; for if all the children of two years old and
younger were actually put to death at that time, John would have been
one of them. But this riddle will become intelligible if, in the
light of the facts disclosed by the Akasha Chronicle, you realize
that the events related in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew did not
take place at the same time. The Nathan Jesus was born after the
Bethlehem massacre; so too was John. Although the interval was only a
matter of months, it was long enough to make these facts possible.
"You will also learn to understand the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew
in the light of the more intimate facts. In this boy was reincarnated
the Zarathustra individuality, from whom the people of ancient Persia
had once received the teaching concerning Ahura Mazdao, the great Sun
Being. We know that this Sun Being must be regarded as the soul and
spirit of the external, physical sun. Hence Zarathustra was able to
say: 'Behold not only the radiance of the physical sun; behold too,
the mighty Being who sends down His spiritual blessings as the
physical sun sends down its beneficient light and warmth! -- Ahura
Mazdao, later called Christ in other words - it was He whom
Zarathustra proclaimed to the people of Persia, but not yet as a
Being who walked on the Earth. Pointing to the sun, Zarathustra could
only say: "There is His habitation; He is gradually drawing near and
one day He will live in a body on the Earth!".
This passage contains the solution to the centuries-old question in
Gospel Research concerning the truth of the two Nativities. But it
also at the same time contains the seed for a new interpre-tation
that can overrule this solution. The critical sentence reads: "Thus
the interval between the two births amounted to a few months".
The interpretation of this sentence by students of Rudolf Steiner
today gives rise to the above described opinion C: "There are two
Jesus boys whose births are only a few months apart." By giving most
of the weight to this sentence that the births are only a few months
apart, these students accept that due to this emphasis on one item of
research by Rudolf Steiner other results will be denied. The greatest
consequence of this exegesis, however, is that it prevents the
solution to a centuries-old problem in Gospels Research, which Rudolf
Steiner succeeded in solving, from being publicly recognized. The
chronological contradictions are not eliminated, we take into account
that there were indeed two Jesus boys, but have them born in
Bethlehem as it were at the same time, i.e. only a few months apart.
The "contradictions" between the family trees as well as
the "contradictions" in the geographical conditions (Judaea-Samaria
and Galilee-Syria) are admittedly resolved, but as long as these
slight differences in age are assumed to exist the anachronisms
In the above quotation we are also challenged to think for ourselves.
Rudolf Steiner says: "You see, it is necessary to really think about
all these things...".
Let us use this thinking to check the opinion that the age difference
between the two boys amounted to "only a few months.": If our
starting point is that Jesus of Bethlehem must have been older that
Jesus of Nazareth,
then this means that the age difference amounted to at least six
months. The Angel of Annunciation says to Mary (Luke 1.36): "And,
behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived-a son in her
old age: and this is the sixth month with her...".
If the younger Jesus was born around Christmas, then we have to set
the date for the birth of John on "St John's Tide", thus on June 24.
Now we also believe in addition that the birth of Jesus of Bethlehem
must be set forward another six months. If, however, we are of the
opinion that Jesus of Bethlehem was born "from the Virgin (Mary)",
which requires that the Sun was in Virgo, thus in September, then we
have to go back three more months. Depending on whether we assume
Christmas or Michaelmas to be the date of birth of the elder Jesus,
we come to an age difference of at least twelve or fourteen months.
Between the birth of the elder Jesus and the birth of John must lie
the death of Herod. The latter died, as is historically documented,
in the year 4 BC, on the day of the eclipse of the rnoon on March 13.
Based on these considerations the births of the Jesus boys would have
to be set on Christmas in 5 BC and 4 BC. This assumption however has
a flaw. At that time, Quintilius Varus was Governor of Syria.
According to Luke, Cyrenius should be Governor in Syria. Cyrenius
however did not become Governor there until Varus had been
transferred to Gennania.
The difference in age becomes even greater when a later result of
research by Rudolf Steiner is taken into account. Rudolf Steiner has
determined the exact age and time of death of the crucified Jesus
Christ as described by Luke. Together with the establishment of the
date of birth of the Matthew Jesus - who died in the year 11 AD as a
result of the events around the twelve year old Luke Jesus - by
Johannes Kepler, the exact birthdays may be known today as follows:
Based on the research by Rudolf Steiner into the original Good Friday
and the age of the Crucified One, the birth of the Luke Jesus is to
be set on Christmas in the year 2 BC. (East 33 minus 33 1/3 =
Christmas 2 BC). John the Baptist was born six months earlier, i.e.
around St. John's tide in the year 2 BC. From the calculation of the
great conjunction, it follows that I birth of the other Jesus
occurred in September of the year 7 BC. Only these two dates penal
the references given by Matthew and Luke to exist side by side
without contradiction. Based on the view of Kepler (Matthew-Jesus)
and the research of Rudolf Steiner (Luke-Jesus), the difference in
age between the two Jesus boys amounts to 5 1/4 years.
The supposition of the idea that the birthdays are only a few months
apart, prevents a synchronization of the information given by the
Gospels with accepted history.
This diminishes their truth and thereby also the words of Rudolf
Steiner: "The Gospels always describe the truth; it is not necessary
to sit and ponder over them. Thanks to Anthroposophy people will
again come to take the Gospels literally."(St Luke Gospel, Basle
The adherents of the theory that the Jesus boys are of the same age
say that Kepler's view is false, because the conjunction did not take
place in the year zero. This does not only injustice to Kepler, for
it also transports the Gospel's Periscope about the Magi into the
realm of fantasy. Above all, by referring to Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf
Steiner is done injustice to, because he has after all declared that
both Gospels are true, provided they are read correctly.
I have grappled with this problem for decades. Only when I discovered
the star of Munsalvaesche, did I know for sure that Kepler was right
and that Rudolf Steiner is being falsely interpreted, when it said
that both Jesus boys are about the same age.
Rudolf Steiner actually left the age of the two Jesus boys up in the
air. He never says exactly how long the interval is between the two
births. What he does say, however, is that it must be at least long
enough to account for the fact that one Jesus could live in peace,
while the other was threatened by child-murder. The death of Herod
was also for Rudolf Steiner the decisive factor. A historically
accepted date such as Herod's death may therefore not simply be
If Rudolf Steiner had known the exact dates and said for example that
one boy was born 2 ½ years before Herod's death, and the other not
until three years after this death, then the question concerning the
safety of one of the boys and the danger of the other would not have
The same problem arose with the twelve year old Jesus in the temple.
After the discovery of the two Jesus boys, there were now also
two "twelve year old boys named Jesus in the temple", between whom
the events took place that Rudolf Steiner describes, and as a result
of which we were afterwards left with only one Jesus. Rudolf Steiner
speaks often in this context about two "twelve year olds", sometimes
however clearly differentiating: "When the Nathan Jesus was
approaching his twelfth year". From the last sentence may be
concluded that indeed the Nathan Jesus, but not the Solomon Jesus was
at that time twelve years old. The question whether there were one or
two twelve year olds can not be solved by referring to Rudolf
Steiner, because he
left indications from which can be concluded that the two Jesus boys
were of the same age, as well as indications from which can be
gathered that they were not.
Rudolf Steiner must have had a reason for not exactly indicating
these dates of birth. As a matter of fact, he mentioned strikingly
few dates. The only date he indicates exactly as a result of
spiritual scientific research is the date of the crucifixion. In the
first edition of the Calendar of the Soul from 1912, he says that the
original Good Friday fell on April 3, 33. This Soul Calendar begins
on Easter 1912 or "1879 years after the birth of the I". Together
with the result of research that the Crucified One was 33 1/3 years
old, it can be calculated that the birth of the Luke Jesus occurred
around Christmas in the year 2 BC. If with regard to the Luke Jesus,
take Rudolf Steiner into account, we then find that the historical-
political information given by the Gospel of Luke coincides with the
historically recorded conditions, just as the information from
Matthew does, if we presuppose the date of birth of the Matthew Jesus-
Michaelmas 7 BC established by Johannes Kepler. Nothing can
therefore now prevent us any more from both of these dates of birth
As a result, the epoch-making discovery by Rudolf Steiner that there
were two Nativities now also make an important contribution to our
understanding of the Gospels, because we have found the right dates
of birth of the two Jesus boys. We should out of respect for Rudolf
Steiner' not simply refuse to accept these dates.
I in any case do not believe that it is right to reject the great
conjunction in the year 7 BC as the star of Bethlehem by referring to
Rudolf Steiner. He himself referred, albeit somewhat vaguely, to this
conjunction by mentioning that Zarathustra drew the attention of his
students to that sign in the heavens. .
Before delving into this reference, I would like to mention another
researcher, who with the knowledge of Rudolf Steiner's research and
on the basis of the accepted historical dates of the two Gospels,
comes to the conclusion that the two dates of birth are five,
respectively six, years apart. This researcher, Emil Funk (f.12),
does not evaluate the Matthew periscope about the three Magi. By
consciously leaving it out, he simply rejects it, thereby overlooking
the most essential, chronological information of the Gospel of
Matthew. He says: "The famous triple conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn that is constantly brought in connection with this Jesus boy
occurred in the year 7 BC. Yet I reject the view that this
conjunction is identical with the Star of the Magi
There could, however, be a certain connection with the birth of the
Solomon Jesus boy. A definite decision about whether the year 7 BC is
right can for the time being not be made."
A researcher, who evaluates the historical tradition with knowledge
acquired from Rudolph Steiner, comes to the conclusion therefore that
the year 6 BC would be right for the date of birth of the Solomonian
Jesus. Funk is the only researcher who, like those of the opinion C,
accepts the two Nativities, but not the great conjunction as a sign
for the birth of the Matthew Jesus. Yet he realizes that the equality
in age of the two boys can not be upheld. He moves the birth of the
Matthew Jesus so far ahead that all anachronisms between the two
Gospels (which continue to exist in the assumption of age equality)
disappear. But Funk ignores the Gospel of Matthew, by assuming only a
supersensible, physically invisible star, although Matthew says that
the Magi saw the star in the sky.
I have asked myself whether Rudolf Steiner's words about the truth of
the Gospel weighed I more heavily than his words about the two twelve
year old Jesus boys. I came to the conclusion I that he could
justifiably be of the opinion to have solved a centuries-old question
in Gospels Research, something which is but possible in the
assumption that the dates of birth are sufficiently far apart. That
is why I allowed myself to treat the great conjunction of the year
7BC without reservation as the Star of Bethlehem.
The objections from those adhering to opinion C, have not prompted me
to change my view. Kepler's view that the Matthew Jesus was born in
the year 7 BC, is not "unfounded belief". Kepler was not an
unspiritual person and in any case a good astronomer. The Magi from
the East can not be evaluated without the aid of astronomy. Kepler
was not so far from the mark in, next to a physically visible
conjunction, also looking for a physically visible new star. He was
only looking in the wrong field. Rudolf Steiner was the first one to
recognize that the events were in effect accompanied by a new star.
He found this new star in the supersensible realm: the reincarnated
Zarathustra. He says:
"Deep and fervent attachment to the individuality (not the
personality) of Zarathustra prevailed in the Mystery-schools of
Chaldea. These Wise Men of the East felt that they were intimately
connected with their great leader. They saw in him the 'Star of
Humanity", for 'Zoroaster (Zarathustra) means 'Gold Star', or 'Star
of Splendor'. They saw in him a reflection of the Sun itself. And
with their profound wisdom they could not fail to know when their
Master would be born again in Bethlehem. Led by their 'Star, they
brought as offerings to him the outer symbols for the most precious
gift he had been able to bestow upon man. "This most precious gift
was knowledge of the outer world, of the mysteries of the Cosmos
received into the human astral body of thinking, feeling and veiling.
Hence the pupils of Zarathustra strove to impregnate these soul-
forces with the wisdom that can be drawn from the deep foundations of
the divine-spiritual world. Symbols for this knowledge, which can be
acquired by mastering the secrets of the outer world, were gold,
frankincense and myrrh: gold - the symbol of thinking, frankincense -
the symbol of piety which pervades man as feeling, and myrrh - the
symbol of the power of will. Thus by appearing before their Master
who was born again in Bethlehem the Magi gave evidence of their union
with him. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew relates what is
literally true when he describes how the Wise Men, among Zarathustra
had once worked, knew that he had reappeared among men, and how they
expressed their connection with him through the three symbols of
gold, frankincense and myrrh - the symbols for the precious gift he
had bestowed upon them.
"Zarathustra, as Jesus of the Solomon line of the House of David, now
needed to work with all possible power in order to give again to men,
in a rejuvenated form, everything he had already given in earlier
times. For this purpose he had to gather and concentrate all the
power he had ever possessed. Hence he could not be born in a body
from the priestly line of the House of David, but only in one from
the line of kings. In this way the Gospel of Matthew indicates the
connection of the royal name in ancient Persia with the ancestry of
the child in whom Zarathustra was reincarnated.
"Indications of these momentous happenings are also contained in
ancient Books of Wisdom originating in the East. Whoever really
understands these Books of Wisdom reads them differently than those
who are ignorant of the facts and therefore confuse everything. In
the Old Testament there are, for instance, two prophecies: one of the
apocryphal Books of Enoch pointing more to the Nathan Messiah of the
priestly line, and the other in the Psalms referring to the Messiah
of the royal line. Every detail in the scriptures harmonizes with the
facts that can be ascertained from the Akashic Chronicle.
"It was necessary for Zarathustra to gather all the forces he had
formerly possessed. He had surrendered his astral and etheric bodies
to Hermes and Moses respectively, and through them to Egyptian and
Hebraic culture. It was necessary for him to re-unite with these
forces, as it were to fetch back from Egypt the forces of his etheric
body. A profound mystery is revealed here to us: Jesus of the Solomon
line of the House of David, the reincarnated Zarathustra, was led to
Egypt, for in Egypt were the forces that had streamed from his astral
body and his etheric body when the former had been bestowed upon
Hermes and the latter upon Moses. Because he had influenced the
culture and civilization of Egypt, he had to gather to himself the
forces he had once relinquished. Hence the 'Flight into Egypt' and
its spiritual consequences: the absorption of all the forces he now
needed in order to give again to men full strength and in rejuvenated
form, what he had bestowed upon them in the past ages.
"Thus the history of the Jesus whose parents lived originally in
Bethlehem is correctly related by Matthew. Luke relates only that the
parents of the Jesus of whom he is writing resided in Nazareth, that
they went to Bethlehem to be 'taxed' and that Jesus was born during
that short period. The parents then returned to Nazareth with the
child. In the Gospel of Matthew we are told that Jesus was born in
Bethlehem and that he had to be taken to Egypt. It was after their
return from Egypt that the parents settled in Nazareth, for the child
who was the reincarnation of Zarathustra, was destined to grow up
near the child who represented the other stream - the stream of
Buddhism. Thus the two streams were brought together in actual
This passage makes it clear that the Gospels are true, meaning also
that they correspond with historical events. This presupposes,
however, that the great conjunction be recognized as the Star of the
Wise Men and that the theory of the equality in age of the two Jesus
boys as maintained by group C, is out of the question.
Now we would like to reconstruct how Zarathustra could have his
students absorb the outer secrets of the orbits of the planets in
such a way that it enabled them to find their Master and present Him
with gold, frankincense and myrrh upon being born again in Bethlehem.
Our starting point is the following situation:
We cannot blame Johannes Kepler for not knowing what would only be
revealed 300 years later by Rudolf Steiner: He knows nothing about
the two Jesus boys yet. He therefore attempts to explain the
discrepancies that arise from the false assumption that Luke and
Matthew are describing one and the same Nativity. So he asks himself
for example: "Why did the evangelist Luke not include the date of the
year of Herod's government with his description of the birth of
Christ."" He means: "It was always customary to designate the
histories with the years of the reigning kings."
Yet this is exactly what both evangelists do. Matthew mentions Herod,
for the latter was King of Judaea and Samaria. Bethlehem was located
in this area. Luke mentions Cyrenius, the Governor of Syria. Nazareth
came under the sovereignty of Cyrenius. What Kepler finds strafe is
just proof for the validity of Rudolf Steiner's finding that the two
evangelists are describing two different Jesus boys, whose parents
live in different lands. The parents of the one are subjects of Herod
in Judaea, while the parents of the other live in Galilee in the
province of Syria. In his dispute with the medicinal doctor Helisaeus
Roslin, Kepler is constantly confusing the
Luke Jesus with the Matthew Jesus, because he could not yet have
known these facts. His attempts at explaining the situation are just
as little convincing as a contemporary astronomer who knows nothing
about the two Jesus boys yet or who places their dates of birth so
close together that the advantage, which his starting point has
compared to the ignorant, is lost again.
Today the time has surely come to so interpret the research of Kepler
and Rudolf Steiner that it results in an explanation of the two
Nativities free from contradictions.
This is what has been attempted here in the sense of opinion group D.
We believe that Rudolf Steiner himself must be aligned to this group,
because his references to the Christ prophecy of Zarathustra can only
refer to the great conjunction in Pisces, which in more modem times
was first recognized by Kepler and since then above all by the
Viennese astronomer Konradin Ferrari to be that event, which was
already known to Kyot-Willehalm as "The Star of the Wise Men".
Willehalm chose this star to be his standard bearer. Wolfram says
(Wh. 369, 13-
Where the star was shining forth
with such radiance
from the banner of the Count
(Let none of you get the idea
that it was the star which -
so the story goes -
guided the Three Kings.
This star was providing
much jousting for the Saracens!)
The aim of our excursion to this Star of the Wise Men in the context
of our Grail Research was to reveal and make public the singularity
of understanding concerning the meaning of this "star" from Kyot-
Willehalm through Wolfram von Eschenbach and Kepler until Rudolf
Steiner. This link forms the continuation of a Grail line that was
already followed by Zarathustra, later by Zoroaster and Pythagoras
and then by the Wise Men from the East.
That we are more than justified in placing Rudolf Steiner in this
line, shall now be made further
recognizable by attempting to interpret Rudolf Steiner's indications
concerning a Christ prophecy by Zarathustra in just this sense.
(9-29-99; footnotes at end of next article)