Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

reconsidering some chronology

Expand Messages
  • RobertM
    (The following are remarks that I composed after running across Werner Greub s work on the chronology of the lives of the Jesuses. I previously posted a
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2013
      (The following are remarks that I composed after
      running across Werner Greub's work on the
      chronology of the lives of the Jesuses. I
      previously posted a critique of Robert Powell's
      *Chronicle of the Living Christ*, which is
      reproduced at
      The remarks here might stand alone, but they
      would probably make more sense if the reader
      will have first read that critique.)

      reconsideration of Powell's *Chronicle* in light
      of W. Greub's research

      I have spent some time reconsidering my comments
      about Robert Powell's *Chronicle* in light of
      Werner Greub's research on the times in the
      lives of the Jesuses. I have considered what I
      could find online in English from Greub's
      writings on this theme. I consider mainly
      Greub's essays "De Vero Anno" and "Chronology of
      the Gospels -- The Jesus Mystery". There is
      also the essay "Zarathustra and The Three Holy
      Kings", but this is mostly fantasy, and I don't
      go into it much here. I also reconsidered
      Powell's *Chronicle*, Bock's *The Three Years*,
      and Sucher's *Cosmic Christianity*.

      Assuming the reader's familiarity with the
      basics of Rudolf Steiner's information about the
      lives f the Jesuses, for the sake of simplicity
      and clarity, I will start these remarks by
      trying to nail down some data points:

      1) Josephus maintains that Herod the Great died
      between a lunar eclipse and a following
      Passover. Of the lunar eclipses visible in
      Jerusalem, the two in contention are those of
      March 13 in 4 BC and January 10 in 1 BC. (See,
      for instance, Powell's *Chronicle* p.67 ff.)

      2) The Gospel of *Luke* strongly implies that
      Herod was "king" when John the Baptist was
      conceived -- also that the Baptist was conceived
      about six months before the conception of the
      Luke-Nathan Jesus. *Luke* says (Chpt. 1):

      5 There was in the days of Herod, the king
      of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of
      the course of Abia: and his wife was of the
      daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
      . . .

      7 And they had no child, because that
      Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now
      well stricken in years.

      8 And it came to pass, that while he
      executed the priest's office before God in the
      order of his course . . . .

      11 And there appeared unto him an angel of
      the Lord standing on the right side of the altar
      of incense.

      12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was
      troubled, and fear fell upon him.

      13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not,
      Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife
      Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt
      call his name John. . . .

      18 And Zacharias said unto the angel,
      Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man,
      and my wife well stricken in years.

      19 And the angel answering said unto him, I
      am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God;
      and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee
      these glad tidings.

      20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not
      able to speak, until the day that these things
      shall be performed, because thou believest not
      my words, which shall be fulfilled in their
      season. . . .

      23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as
      the days of his ministration were accomplished,
      he departed to his own house.

      24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth
      conceived, and hid herself five months . . . .

      26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
      was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named

      27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name
      was Joseph, of the house of David; and the
      virgin's name was Mary. . . .

      31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy
      womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his
      name JESUS. . . .

      36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she
      hath also conceived a son in her old age: and
      this is the sixth month with her, who was called
      barren. . . .

      39 And Mary arose in those days, and went
      into the hill country with haste, into a city of

      40 And entered into the house of Zacharias,
      and saluted Elisabeth.

      41 And it came to pass, that, when
      Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe
      leaped in her womb . . . .

      56 And Mary abode with her about three
      months, and returned to her own house.

      57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she
      should be delivered; and she brought forth a
      son. . . .

      60 And his mother answered and said, Not
      so; but he shall be called John. . . .

      80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in
      spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of
      his shewing unto Israel. . . .

      (Luke elsewhere [3;1] refers to a "Herod" as
      "tetrarch", so he does know the difference
      between *tetrarch* and *king*, and indicates it
      in his writing. This "tetrarch" was almost
      certainly Herod Archelaus, son of "Herod the
      Great", who therefore must have been the "king"

      Luke does not say explicitly that the John-child
      was conceived while Herod was king, but this is
      strongly implied from the context. (Luke says
      "as soon as the days of his [Zacharias']
      ministration were accomplished".)

      3) The Baptist and the Luke-Nathan Jesus were
      both born after the death of Herod. Herod had
      ordered the "massacre of the innocents", and
      only after his death were the John and Luke-
      Nathan Jesus babes safe. Rudolf Steiner says
      this explicitly, and most commentators on this
      question seem to accept this fact.

      "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." (from *Gospel of
      Luke*; Lecture Five)

      With these data points in mind, I turn to
      consideration of Greub's contentions.

      From "DE VERO ANNO - On the Nativity of Jesus
      Christ" by Werner Greub --

      Greub says:
      >>In the first volume of my research report,
      "How the Grail Sites Were Found - Wolfram von
      Eschenbach and the Reality of The Grail" it was
      pointed out that the great conjunction of the
      year 7 B.C. is a manifestation of what
      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 return of this great
      conjunction in the year 848 A.D. [as the Star of
      Munsalvaesche] marks the time that Parzival
      became Grail king. . . . there can be no doubt
      that Kepler's astronomical interpretation of the
      date of birth of the Jesus-Matthew is correct.<<

      Comment: *Matthew* says (2;9) that the "star,
      which they saw in the east, went before them,
      till it came and stood over where the young
      child was". Obviously, no ordinary star in the
      sky, or any conjunction, could go "before them"
      and indicate a specific house where the child
      was. This "star" could have been no ordinary
      star; it must have been something else.

      There's a great deal of doubt about Kepler's
      assertions. The conjunctions of 7-6 BC were
      likely very important, as Willi Sucher in
      *Cosmic Christianity* argues, but as marking the
      "spiritual nativity" of Jesus, not as a physical
      birth. "Furthermore, we have found that the
      Great Conjunction of 7 BC is closely related to
      the sky of the original Christmas. That
      conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Fishes in 7
      BC is the 'Spiritual Nativity' belonging to the
      actual nativity on 25 December 1 BC. (See
      Steiner's Cosmic and Human Thought, concerning
      the Spiritual Nativity.)" (from Willi Sucher:
      Letter 4 - August 1952; see APPENDIX 3 below)

      "Astrologer Richard Nolle's 3000-Year Jupiter-
      Saturn Conjunction Table" does indeed list a
      "Jupiter-Saturn Conjunction" for "MAY 15, 848",
      and "GrailGate's" "The Myth of the Phoenix" does
      point to a 854-year cycle of the appearance of
      the a starry configuration of a "Phoenix",
      saying: "A Phoenix Cycle is roughly 4270 years
      long, and every 854 years the phoenix is burned
      by the Sun and rises from its ashes again!"

      "GrailGate" says that the conjunction circa 6 BC
      was repeated about 854 years later, circa 848 or
      849 AD, "the year that Parzival became king of
      the Grail" as Greub contends. Greub says:
      ". . . . 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 marks the date that Parzival became
      King of the Grail."

      Greub calls these two conjunctions the "Star of
      Bethlehem and the Star of Munsalvaesche".)

      But what does *Matthew* actually say? From
      Chpt. 2:

      1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of
      Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold,
      there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

      2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of
      the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east,
      and are come to worship him.

      3 When Herod the king had heard these
      things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with

      4 And when he had gathered all the chief
      priests and scribes of the people together, he
      demanded of them where Christ should be born. .
      . .

      5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of
      Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

      6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,
      art not the least among the princes of Juda: for
      out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall
      rule my people Israel.

      7 Then Herod, when he had privily called
      the wise men, enquired of them diligently what
      time the star appeared.

      8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said,
      Go and search diligently for the young child;
      and when ye have found him, bring me word again,
      that I may come and worship him also.

      9 When they had heard the king, they
      departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in
      the east, went before them, till it came and
      stood over where the young child was.

      10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced
      with exceeding great joy.

      11 And when they were come into the house,
      they saw the young child with Mary his mother,
      and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they
      had opened their treasures, they presented unto
      him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

      12 And being warned of God in a dream that
      they should not return to Herod, they departed
      into their own country another way.

      13 And when they were departed, behold, the
      angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a
      dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child
      and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou
      there until I bring thee word: for Herod will
      seek the young child to destroy him.

      14 When he arose, he took the young child
      and his mother by night, and departed into

      It's very hard to see how any star in the sky, a
      "great conjunction" or otherwise, could have led
      the three wise men to Jerusalem, much less to a
      specific house in Bethlehem. But *Matthew* says
      explicitly that is was the same "star" that
      "they saw in the east". Much more likely, this
      was a supersensible "star", a sign of the spirit
      of Zarathustra, as Rudolf Steiner says. But no
      conjunction in the sky could have been the
      "star" to which Matthew alludes.

      Probably the "wise men" of the east, the "Magi",
      were in possession of "star wisdom", and
      probably did see some significance in the "great
      conjunction" of 7 BC -- but, again, no
      conjunction in the sky could have been the
      "star" which Matthew talks about. Greub's "Star
      of Munsalvaesche" might well point back to the
      conjunction of 7 BC, and that conjunction was
      likely important as some kind of marker of the
      Earthly Christ events (as even Willi Sucher
      allows), but all this is still no proof that the
      conjunction of 7 BC marked the birth of either
      of the Jesus babes.

      Greub says:
      >>The critical sentence [from RS] reads: "The
      birthdates of the two Jesus children are a few
      months apart." . . . . Whoever extracts this
      sentence from the above-mentioned quote by
      Rudolf Steiner, without mentioning that its
      significance is diminished by the reference to
      the infanticide, is not acting in a professional
      manner. . . . The significance of this concept
      is focused on the actual time of the death of
      Herod. About the date of this death, however,
      Rudolf Steiner says nothing. Therefore it is
      beyond any doubt that the phrase "several
      months" does not signify a precise timeframe.<<

      Comment: But RS does not mention the "few
      months" difference in this passage only; he
      implies it elsewhere also. For instance in the
      "Gospel of Matthew: Lecture VI" he says that the
      two Jesus boys were about the same age:
      "The individuality of Zarathustra evolved during
      boyhood until his twelfth year, within the
      physical and etheric body of that Jesus of whom
      the Gospel of Matthew speaks . . . . The
      individuality of Zarathustra did then actually
      forsake the physical and etheric body described
      in the Gospel of Matthew and passed over into
      the Jesus of the Gospel of Luke. [in the story
      of the Temple visit in *Luke* when the Luke-
      Nathan Jesus was about twelve years old] . . . .
      The two boys grew up near to each other until
      their twelfth year."

      And elsewhere RS also implies the nearness of
      the age of the two Jesuses, as when he refers to
      the age of the Matthew Mary at the time of the
      Baptism: "During that talk with his mother, the
      I of Zarathustra withdrew [from the body of the
      Luke-Nathan Jesus]. He was again what he was at
      twelve years of age, only grown up. And the
      Christ-Being descended into that body at the
      baptism in the Jordan. And at the same moment as
      this baptism in the Jordan took place, the
      mother experienced the end of her
      transformation. She felt – at the time she was
      forty-five, forty-six years old -, she felt
      herself imbued with the soul of the woman who
      was Jesus' mother until he was twelve when he
      received the Zarathustra-I; and who had later
      died." (from *The Fifth Gospel*; Lecture 5) --
      We recall that the Matthew Mary had been married
      to the Luke-Nathan Joseph since soon after the
      transformation in the Temple around the Luke-
      Nathan Jesus' twelfth year. Considering that
      the Matthew-Solomon Jesus had been born almost
      exactly 31 years before this conversation, RS
      implies that the Matthew Mary had been around 14
      or 15 years old at time of the birth of her
      first son. If, as Greub and Powell argue, that
      Jesus had been born five or six years earlier,
      then RS would have been implying that the
      Matthew Mary had been 9 or 10 years old then;
      this is highly implausible. Again, RS is
      implying that the age difference between the two
      Jesuses was only a matter of months. -- Powell
      tries to get around this by dating the birth of
      the "Solomon" Mary at Sept. 7/8, 21 BC,
      following AC Emmerich (*Chronicle* pp.125ff).
      This would have made the Matthew Mary at least
      51 years old at the time RS is talking about.
      So Powell once again is in conflict with
      Steiner. (But of course, Powell also puts the
      Baptism over a year earlier than does Steiner.)

      And: the date of the death of Herod is not so
      certain. If we take Luke (1:5 ff) seriously,
      then Herod was still alive at least 15 months
      before the birth of the Luke-Nathan Jesus. If
      that's so, and taking Josephus and Steiner
      together, then Herod must have died between the
      eclipse and the Passover of 1 BC. It is not at
      all certain that the "infanticide" happened 4 BC
      or earlier; it might have been as late as 1 BC.

      Greub says:
      >>Between the birth of the older Jesus and the
      birth of John must have occurred the death of

      Comment: OK, but, again, if the birth of the
      Nathan Jesus took place in 2 or 1 BC, then Herod
      could not have died soon after the lunar eclipse
      of 4 BC (according to the times suggested in
      *Luke*); he must therefore have died soon after
      the eclipse of 1 BC. If so, then the birth of
      the Luke-Nathan Jesus could have been no earlier
      than 1 BC. And likewise the birth of John.
      Greub here makes his own dating impossible.

      But maybe the parents of the young John also
      fled with him to avoid the mass infanticide? --
      But according to *Matthew* Herod "sent forth and
      slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and
      in all the coasts thereof from two years old and
      under." I don't know exactly what *coasts
      thereof* meant in the original Greek (or
      Aramaic), but it probably wasn't very precise.
      The parents of John would likely had to have
      fled some distance; the *Bible* mentions no such
      flight. Anyway, RS said explicitly that John
      was born after the infanticide.

      Greub says:
      >>. . . . Luke-Jesus-Christ was crucified on
      April 3, 33 . . . .<<

      Comment: Everyone (in the Anthro discussions)
      seems to agree on this date, so I will assume it

      Grueb says:
      >>Jesus must have been born exactly thirty-three
      and a third years before the original Good

      Comment: Why? RS can be interpreted as having
      implied 32 1/4 (or 1/3) years. For example in
      "Et Incarnatus Est" (23 Dec, 1917). This is
      somewhat ambiguous, but it can be read that way.

      And it's not really all that ambiguous. RS
      gives several examples which all point to 32 1/4
      years. (I'm taking the years as being divided
      roughly into quarters by the major Christian
      festivals, even though Easter is moveable, and
      the quarters aren't precise anyway. I'm
      speaking roughly, conventionally.) If so, then
      the birth of the Nathan Jesus must have been
      around Christmas of 1 BC, which fits nicely with
      Steiner's statements, with no strained

      And Powell does strain. Powell says (p.69 of
      *Chronicle*, footnote about *Et Incarnatus Est*
      23.12.1917 GA118: "There is some ambiguity in
      Rudolf Steiner's formulation." He allows that
      RS *seems* to point to a 32 1/4 years life of
      the Nathan Jesus, but then he refers to Ellen
      Schalk's essay (1982 p 1-6; *Beitrage zu einer
      Erweiterung der Heilkunst*), saying that this is
      a "false interpretation" -- and that the term
      *Christmas-Year* refers to "the year beginning
      at Christmas"; ie that the reference to 1884 is
      really to the "year" beginning at Christmas
      1883, thus making 33 1/4 (or 1/3) years instead,

      The term, in German, was *Weihnachtsjahr*. This
      is not in the German dictionary; apparently RS
      coined it in this lecture. This lecture is not
      easily available in English, but I have found
      some parts. The lecture of 23 Dec 1917 does

      "The time interval between Christmas and Easter
      is to be understood as consisting of 33 years.
      This is the key. What does this mean? That the
      Christmas festival celebrated this year belongs
      to the Easter festival that follows 33 years
      later, while the Easter festival we celebrate
      this year belongs to the Christmas of 1884. In
      1884 humanity celebrated a Christmas festival
      which really belongs to the Easter of this year,
      and the Christmas festival we celebrate this
      year belongs, not to the Easter of next spring,
      but to the one 33 years hence. . . . human
      beings using the Christmas festival in order to
      realize that events happening at approximately
      the present time (we can only say approximately
      in such matters) refer back in their historical
      connections in such a way that we are able to
      perceive their birthdays or beginnings in the
      events of 33 years ago, and that the events of
      today also provide a birthday or beginning for
      events which will ripen to fruition in the
      course of the next 33 years. . . . we can
      neither perceive nor understand the real
      significance of any event that is taking place
      today unless we refer back to the time of its
      corresponding Christmas Year, that is 1884. For
      the year 1914 we must therefore look back to
      1881. All the actions of earlier generations,
      all the impulses, their combined activity poured
      into the stream of historic evolution, have a
      life cycle of 33 years. Then comes its Easter
      time, the time of resurrection . . . ."

      Christmas 1884 to Easter 1917 is about 32 1/4
      years. Christmas 1917 to Easter 33 years later
      is again about 32 1/4 years. Christmas 1881 to
      Easter 1914 is around 32 1/4 years. RS said it
      three times. Powell does really strain to make
      *Weihnachtsjahr* mean *the year beginning at
      Christmas*. The phrase *corresponding Christmas
      Year* must refer to the year in which Christmas
      was celebrated 33 years before the
      "corresponding" Easter; that is, to the
      Christmas about 32 1/4 years earlier. -- It is
      evident that RS is speaking of "33 years"
      qualitatively", not strictly quantitatively --
      and only "approximately". One can't infer from
      this passage that the Incarnation was literally
      33 1/3 years; the implication is rather that a
      32 1/4 year Incarnation is more likely (from
      these remarks by themselves).

      {Powell (p. 17) refers to RS's statement
      concerning the accuracy of ACE's reports.
      Powell says that RS confirmed the accuracy "to
      some extent". And it was, as far as I can tell,
      only to some extent; not to the whole of her

      {Powell wrote: "Emmerich's visions of the life
      of Christ were written down by Clemens Brentano
      during the last five years of her life. When he
      was asked about the visions of Anne Catherine
      Emmerich as recorded by Clemens Brentano, Rudolf
      Steiner indicated: 'These contain the visions of
      an extraordinarily good somnambulist. Namely,
      these are the parts which relate to mirror
      vision. Without a doubt, they contain
      exceptionally accurate material.' (September
      1908 in questions and answers during his
      lectures on Egyptian Myths and Mysteries (Gt.
      Barrington/MA: SteinerBooks, 1971);
      unfortunately this edition does not contain the
      questions and answers, which are available only
      in manuscript form."

      {To me, Steiner's statement, even as recorded,
      falls far short of an endorsement of the
      complete accuracy of everything that Anne
      Catherine Emmerich ever said. If one reads the
      comments without prejudice, one sees that RS
      said only that "parts" were "accurate", not that
      everything was accurate. And in general,
      Steiner did not consider "somnambulists" to be
      generally reliable. For instance, STEINER SAID:

      {"Now all these beings who have been mentioned
      are by no means unconnected with our existence.
      Their deeds, activities, manifestations, are
      definitely extended into our life and their
      action is particularly to be traced by
      clairvoyance when certain conditions appear on
      earth. Thus the beings who - naturally as astral
      beings - are at home on the moon are present on
      earth in the most varied circumstances, when for
      instance a man falls prey to illusory ideas, or
      where insane people are gathered. Such astral
      beings show special preference for the
      neighborhood of insane asylums. They are,
      moreover, almost always to be found near mediums
      and somnambulists; these persons have such
      beings swirling round them, and a large
      proportion of the influences that are exercised
      upon them is derived from the presence of these
      creatures. Where on the other hand love and
      kindliness prevail, where humanitarianism is
      unfolded, there you find the mild, gentle Mars
      beings present as astral creations, taking part
      in the forces which are there at work. That is
      nourishment for them, the atmosphere in which
      they can live and when they exercise their
      influence on man." [ 6 Jan. 1908]}

      Greub says:
      >>Rudolf Steiner . . . saw no reason to question
      the date of Christmas. He even emphasizes 24/25
      December as Christmas Day.<<

      Comment: OK. RS said it over and over, but
      Powell disputes it.

      Greub says:
      >>I have grappled with this issue for decades.
      Only when I discovered the Star Munsalvaesche, I
      knew for certain that Kepler is right and that
      Rudolf Steiner is being interpreted falsely,
      when it is said that the two Jesus children are
      about the same age.

      >>[Translator's note: The author here refers to
      his discovery of the repetition of the Star of
      Bethlehem as the Star of Munsalvaesche in 848
      over the sky of the Arlesheim Ermitage, in the
      sign of which Parzival became Grail king. See
      the chapter "Wolframs Astronomy" by Werner Greub
      form his book "How The Grail Sites Were

      The conjunction of 7BC is important, as Sucher
      says in his discussion of the man with the 38
      years' infirmity, but this still does not imply
      that this conjunction marked any birth of either
      of the Jesus boys.

      Again: the "star" of Bethlehem mentioned in
      *Matt* Chpt. 2 could not have been a "star" in
      the ordinary sense. No ordinary star in the sky
      could have led the wise men to Jerusalem, much
      less to a specific house in Bethlehem.

      Greub says:
      >>For Rudolf Steiner, the death of Herod is the
      decisive criterion. One should therefore not
      overlook a recorded historical date, such as the
      death of Herod. If Rudolf Steiner had mentioned
      the exact birthdates, for example, and would
      have said that one boy was born 2 years before
      the death of Herod . . . .<<

      Comment: OK, but is the death date of Herod
      beyond dispute? It's not at all. For instance,
      Ormond Edwards puts it after the eclipse of 1
      BC, and if Luke and Josephus are right, and
      taking Steiner's statements, then Edwards must
      have been right. And the birth of the (Matthew-
      Solomon) Jesus need not have been as much as two
      years before Herod's death; Herod may have
      ordered the killing of all male children under
      two years old just to make sure. He may not
      have know exactly when the "kingly" Jesus had
      been born.

      Greub says:
      >>The question about the twelve year old Jesus
      or both twelve year old Jesuses in the Tempel
      [sic] cannot be resolved by basing oneself on
      the "words" of Rudolf Steiner, because there are
      isolated sentences from which it can be
      concluded that both Jesus children were of the
      same age, as well as sentences which imply that
      they were not.<<

      Comment: What are these *other* "sentences"?

      Greub says:
      >>. . . . just as the references made by Matthew
      correspond with those times when, based on the
      calculation made by Johannes Kepler, we
      presuppose the birth of Matthew's Jesus Child to
      have occurred at Michaelmas 7 B.C.<<

      Comment: But I don't see any real reason to
      "presuppose" the calculation of Kepler, much
      less, now, Michaelmas. Why Michaelmas?

      Greub says:
      >>By assuming a supersensible, but physically
      invisible star Funk ignores the statement by
      Matthew in his Gospel that the Magi saw the star
      in the sky.<<

      Elsewhere ("Zarathustra and The Three Holy
      Kings") Greub says: "The supersensible star
      must be accompanied by a physically visible
      stellar event, because Matthew refers to this
      sign visible in the sky."

      Comment: Where does Matthew say *sky*; as far
      as I can see, he says *east*?

      Greub says:
      >>While contemplating whether Rudolf Steiner's
      words about the truth of the Gospels or the
      truth of the words he speaks about the two
      twelve-year old Jesus children carry more
      weight, I concluded that he may justly consider
      himself to have resolved a centuries-old
      question of the Gospels research and to have to
      done away with the contradictions between
      Matthew and Luke, something which is possible
      only under the assumption that the birthdates
      are far enough apart. Therefore I allowed myself
      to cover the great conjunction of the year 7
      B.C. without reservation as the Star of

      Comment: But the relevance of the "great
      conjunction" is just a supposition; the death of
      Herod is more weighty. We don't need any
      "assumption" other than that the birthdates were
      separated by the death of Herod the Great. And
      Herod's death could not have been in 4 BC, if we
      take Josephus, Luke, and Steiner together.

      Greub says:
      >>Without astronomy, the Magi from the East
      cannot be judged. When Kepler in addition to a
      physically visible conjunction also looked for a
      visible new star, he was not so far off. He just
      did not look for it at the right level.

      >>The first to recognize that this event was
      actually accompanied by a new star was Rudolf
      Steiner. He found this new star in the
      supernatural: the reincarnated Zarathustra.

      >>(Translator's note: Here is a footnote in the
      book that refers to a passage from Rudolf
      Steiner's lecture "The Confluence of the Major
      Spiritual Movements of Buddhism and of
      Zarathustra in Jesus of Nazareth. The Nathan and
      Solomon Jesus" of 19 September 1909 from the
      series of lectures in Basel on the Gospel of
      Luke, This passage is in the Appendix and reads
      as follows:

      >>"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 'Golden
      Star', or 'Star of Splendour'. They saw in him a
      reflection of the Sun itself. And with their
      profound wisdom they could not fail to know when
      their Master was born again in Bethlehem. Led by
      their 'Star', they brought as offerings to him .
      . . ."

      >>[Greub:] Rudolf Steiner's words clearly show
      that the accounts of the evangelists are
      correct, i.e. they correspond to historical
      events. This presupposes that the great
      conjunction is recognized as the Star of the
      Magi and that the view . . . that both Jesus
      children are of the same age, is not

      Comment: But the passage from Steiner does not
      say anything at all about Kepler's conjunction;
      RS refers only to the "supernatural" "star", as
      does Matthew.

      Greub says:
      >>. . . . Lucas mentions Cyrenius, the governor
      of Syria. Nazareth in Galilee was since the year
      3 B.C. under the rule of Cyrenius.<<

      Comment: The dates for Cyrenius are crucial,
      but they are not beyond dispute. And anyway,
      *Luke* says that the decree went out when
      Cyrenius was governor of Syria, not necessarily
      that Joseph and Mary of Nazareth arrived in
      Bethlehem during that same governorship.

      Luke says (Chpt. 2):

      1 And it came to pass in those days, that
      there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus,
      that all the world should be taxed.

      2 (And this taxing was first made when
      Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

      3 And all went to be taxed, every one into
      his own city.

      4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out
      of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the
      city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
      (because he was of the house and lineage of

      5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife,
      being great with child.

      6 And so it was, that, while they were
      there, the days were accomplished that she
      should be delivered.

      This "taxing" is elsewhere called an
      "enrollment, and "Cyenius" (Authorized Version)
      is elsewhere called "Quirenius". Wikipedia

      "The Census of Quirinius refers to the
      enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria
      and Iudaea (Judaea) for tax purposes taken in
      the year 6/7. The Census was taken during the
      reign of Emperor Augustus (27 BC -- AD 14), when
      Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed
      governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod
      Archelaus from the Tetrarchy of Judea and the
      imposition of direct Roman rule." -- (A long
      discussion of conflicting scholarship follows.)
      There seems to be no generally accepted date for
      this "census", as there is none for the date of
      the death of Herod. But the article "The Census
      under Quirinius" by Paul R. Finch says:

      "Luke distinguished the registration at the time
      of Jesus' birth as being the "first" one, while
      Quinirius was [provisional] governor of Syria .
      . . ."

      And: "The early Christian apologist
      Tertullian living in the late second century,
      who was by profession a lawyer and well
      acquainted with Roman governmental affairs, said
      that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to
      Bethlehem was conducted when Sentius Saturninus
      was governor of Syria (Answer to the Jews , 8).
      What's more, he said it occurred in the 41st
      year of Augustus, answering to 3/2 B.C.E.
      Indeed, the early Christian sources were nearly
      united in stating that Jesus was born in 3/2
      B.C.E. The list includes Clement of Alexandria,
      Origin, Africanus, Hippolytus of Rome,
      Hippolytus of Thebes, and Cassiodorus Senator.
      This is strong testimony indeed because these
      sources were able to consult the vast libraries
      at their disposals to which modern historians no
      longer have access."

      "With this missing piece of evidence the
      succession of Syrian Governors can now be
      restored as follows:
      Titius 13-7 B.C.E.
      Q. Varus 7-4 B.C.E.
      S. Saturninus 4-2 B.C.E.
      Q. Varus 2 B.C.E.-1 C.E.
      G. Caesar 1-4 C.E."

      Indeed, there is a lot of scholarly disagreement
      about the date of this "governorship" of
      Quirinius. For instance ChristianAnswers.Net

      "There is good reason to believe that Quirinius
      was actually twice in a position of command (the
      Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is
      often translated 'governor' really just means
      'to be leading' or 'in charge of') over the
      province of Syria, which included Judea as a
      political subdivision. The first time would have
      been when he was leading military action against
      the Homonadensians during the period between 12
      and 2 B.C. His title may even have been
      'military governor.'

      "A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds
      weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a
      position of authority in Syria on two separate

      There's a lot of complicated, conflicting
      scholarship on this question. It does appear
      that this "Cyrenius" was Publius Sulpicius
      Quirinius, and the consensus seems to be that he
      was some kind of "governor" of the Roman
      province of Syria (which included Galilee) in 3-
      2 BC. If this supposed date of the governorship
      of Cyrenius is correct, then the Luke-Nathan
      Jesus could not have been born *during* that
      time. For 15 months before Christmas 3 BC is
      September 4 BC, and the lunar eclipse of that
      year was March 13, and Passover is always in the
      Spring -- so Herod could not have died in that
      year, if the Luke-Nathan Jesus was born during
      the governorship of Cyrenius. (Of course, the
      birth at Christmas of 2 BC would even more rule
      out Herod's death in 4 BC.)

      And again, *Luke* does not say that Joseph and
      Mary of Nazareth arrived in Bethlehem during the
      rule of Cyrenius, only that the decree for
      "taxing" went out during that rule. And when
      there is so much scholarly uncertainty about the
      dates of the "governorship", I don't see any
      good reason to overrule Luke on this.


      From "Chronology of the Gospels -- The Jesus

      Greub says:
      >>. . . . Ormond Edwards. In his treatise "A New
      Chronology of the Gospels" (Floris Books,
      London, 1972) he made his findings known.
      Accordingly, the older Jesus was born on January
      4 [sic] of the astronomical year zero (i.e. in
      the year 1 B.C. according to the Christian
      calendar), John the Baptist on June 28 and the
      younger Jesus on December 25 of that same year.

      >> . . . . Ormond Edwards . . . . transposes the
      death of Herod to the "year zero" and burdens
      himself with thousands of hitherto non-existing

      >>. . . . [Edwards] studied the work Antiquities
      of the Jews" of the Jewish historian Flavius
      Josephus, who was born in the year 37 A.D. In
      this work, an event - shortly before the death
      of Herod - is described as follows (Ch. 6:4):
      "Herod deprived this Matthias of the high
      priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who
      had raised the sedition, with his companions,
      alive. And that very night there was an eclipse
      of the moon."

      >>. . . . This lunar eclipse has of course long
      ago been calculated by astronomers. Oswald
      Gerhardt mentions it as early as 1922 in his
      book "Der Stern des Messiah" (The Star of the
      Messiah). In chapter IV he writes: "According to
      calculations by, among others, Ginzel , two
      visible lunar eclipses took place in Jerusalem:
      March 12/13, 4 B.C. and January 9/10, 1 B.C.
      Because it is now assumed that in the first-
      mentioned year four weeks after the lunar
      eclipse the Passah celebration occurred (April 9
      or 10), this time was deemed too short for the
      multiple political events to have occurred,
      which Josephus mentions in the same context. In
      contrast, the time span between the eclipse and
      Passah in 1 B.C. was a full two months longer,
      and that is why Sanclemente, Usser, Freret,
      Ginzel and others considered this date to be the
      year of Herod's death."

      >>In fact, they wrongly believed this. Gerhardt
      explained in a few sentences later in the
      following way that the year 4 B.C. is the only
      relevant year:

      >>"1. Herod ruled from the death of Antigonus
      for a period of 34 years, but from his
      appointment by the Senate for 37 years; both
      periods lead to the year 4 B.C. as the end of
      his reign.
      2. Archelaus was exiled in the year 6 A.D.,
      because this was the tenth year of his reign; he
      succeeded his father Herod in the years 4 B.C.
      3. Antipas reigned -- according to three
      recovered coins -- for 43 years; in the year 39
      A.D. he was dismissed, therefore his reign began
      in the year 4 BC.
      4. Phillippus died in 33 A.D. after having ruled
      for 37 years, thus his reign began in 4 B.C.

      >>These historically fixed dates show
      unanimously that Herod died in 4 B.C."

      >>. . . . Edwards should however have noticed
      that his spokesman Josephus repeatedly
      mentions the actions and reactions of a governor
      he calls Varus. This is Quinctilius Varus,
      better known for his role in the Germanic wars.

      >>In the year 4 B.C. Varus was governor. Edwards
      would therefore also have to shift at the same
      time the governorship of Varus and all other
      events surrounding the death of Herod to the
      year zero, or else allow reason to reign and
      recognize that an event taking place in the year
      4 B.C. cannot be fixed in the year zero.<<

      Comment: The time of the death of Herod is
      crucial, and most historians seem to agree that
      it was in 4 BC. This would seem to imply that
      the birth of the Matthew-Solomon Jesus was
      around 6 BC, if one assumes that the visit of
      the "wise men" was two years before the
      "massacre of the innocents".

      But: if Luke, Josephus, and Steiner are right,
      then most historians must be wrong. The death
      of Herod the Great must have been in 1 BC.

      Greub says:
      >>Varus was succeeded by Cyrenius, who reigned
      in the years 3 and 2 B.C. Luke mentions him as
      governor during the birth of the younger Jesus
      (L. 2:3). Therefore, the birth of the younger
      Jesus must have occurred in his tenure: 3 or
      2 B.C.

      >>Cyrenius is that P. Sulpicius Quirinius . . .
      . Quirinius was in the year zero (i.e. 1 B.C.)
      no longer governor of Syria, but military
      adviser and chief of staff at the headquarters
      of the man tipped to be the successor to
      Augustus on the Upper Euphrates.

      >>Because Luke is right in his reference to
      Cyrenius, the birth of Jesus cannot simply be
      shifted to the year zero.<<

      Comment: But, again, even if these dates are
      correct, they do not imply that the Luke-Nathan
      Jesus was born during the governorship of
      Cyrenius. The decree went out then, but did the
      parents reach Bethlehem then or later, or a year
      later? And again, taking Luke, Josephus, and
      Steiner together, both 3 BC and 2 BC are

      Greub says:
      >>. . . . Rudolf Steiner unequivocal results of
      research according to which the age of the
      crucified Jesus Christ was not 32â…" but clearly
      33â…" years.<<

      Comment: But are these results really
      "unequivocal"? -- Not at all; again, reading the
      "Et Incarnatus Est" lecture, RS seems to point
      to 32 1/4 years.

      Greub says:
      >>Particularly surprising is that on the
      authority of Rudolf Steiner it is claimed that
      he usually refers to a life of Christ lasting
      thirty three year and also of a "33 year
      rhythm", which has left its mark on the course
      of history, but that his examples showed that
      this rhythm would have completed itself in 32 ¼
      years. Here the only answer is: No! Such
      examples do not exist. And neither is this
      example to be found in the above-mentioned
      lecture. Rudolf Steiner was never mistaken about
      the thirty-three years . . . .<<

      Comment: The ("above-mentioned") lecture of
      September 19, 1909 says nothing about a 33-year
      rhythm. The mention of a 33-year rhythm comes
      from the lecture of 23 Dec, 1917, which points
      to a 32 1/4-year Incarnation.

      Greub says:
      >>In the first two centuries, the year of this
      taxation was still generally known. In all early
      Christian documents, the year 752 of the Roman
      era, converted to 2 B.C., was known as the birth
      of Jesus. Eusebius still knew the dates in the
      sense of Luke in the third century. He mentions
      the taxation and the birth in the year 2 B.C. .
      . . . Eusebius is therefore the last person who
      knew the real date of the birth of the Luke-
      Jesus . . . .

      >> Dionysius the Scythian, abbot in Rome in the
      sixth century, who fixed our Christian calendar
      and the method for determining the dates of
      Easter, only knew the birth of Jesus
      approximately. Instead of the year 752 AUC, he
      moved the birth of Jesus to 753. This is the
      reason why our calendar begins one year after
      the birth of the Luke-Jesus.<<

      Comment: Yet again, the date of 2 BC is

      Greub says:
      >>. . . . the reference to the thirtieth year in
      Luke 3:23. ["And Jesus himself began to be
      about thirty years of age . . . ."] A Jewish
      teacher of the law had to have reached the age
      of thirty before he was allowed to teach in
      public. We may assume that John - and six months
      later Jesus as well - met this requirement.
      Deviant behavior would become known. The
      Sadducees were out to trap Jesus . . . . it can
      be concluded that both John and afterwards Jesus
      had reached the age of thirty at the beginning
      of their public activities.<<

      Comment: The first questions here are whether
      such a requirement would have applied to John
      and Jesus -- and how unequivocal the requirement
      for the age of teaching was. Greub gives no
      reference for his assertions. Does it mean that
      a teacher had to have passed his 30th birthday,
      or does it mean only that he had to be in his
      30th year? Did either John or Jesus really
      present himself as a "teacher of the Law"? --
      "The term 'lawyer' was used synonymously with
      teacher of the law and scribe (Matt. 22:35; Mark
      12:28). His duties would include the study,
      interpretation, expounding of the law, teaching
      the law in the schools and synagogues, and
      deciding questions of the law."
      reet.com> -- I don't know of any indication that
      either John or Jesus presented himself as a
      "teacher of the law".

      Greub says:
      >>. . . . Luke mentions the fifteenth year of
      the reign of Tiberius Caesar [when John the
      Baptist began to preach]. After the death of
      Emperor Augustus, on August 19 in the year 14,
      started the first year of the reign of Tiberius,
      which lasted until August 19, 15. The fifteenth
      year of his reign lies therefore between August
      20, 28 and August 19, 29.

      >>When did John the Baptist begin to preach?
      According to Luke 3:1, this occurred in the
      fifteenth year of reign of Tiberius Caesar, i.e.
      between Augustus 20, 28 and Augustus 19, 29.
      Since he had to be at least 30 years old in that
      year in order to teach in public, he could only
      appear in public after his birthday, around the
      time of Saint John [June 24].

      Comment: Toward the end of the fifteenth year
      of Tiberius John was *in* his thirtieth year.
      It isn't clear to me that he had to be "at least
      30 years old", because I don't know exactly the
      age rule for "teachers", nor do I know that John
      ever put himself forward as "a teacher of the

      Greub says:
      >>In the sixteenth year of the reign of
      Tiberius, the Luke-Jesus was thirty years old.
      He had been allowed to teach since Christmas of
      year 29. Yet did not do so, first he let himself
      be baptized in the Jordan.

      >> . . . . Now that we know that Jesus on his
      birthday on December 25 in the year 29 became
      exactly thirty years old, because eleven days
      later at the baptism his age was indicated to be
      "about" thirty years of age, the seemingly
      uncertain age indicated by Luke proves to be
      amazingly reliable. If the younger one of the
      two Jesus children was exactly thirty years old
      on December 25 of the year 29, then he was born
      around Christmas of the year 2 B.C.<<

      Comment: How long did the Baptist preach before
      Jesus presented Himself for baptism? The
      Gospels don't say. It might well have been over
      a year; indeed, it probably was. -- The
      indications from Steiner as interpreted by Bock,
      Edwards, and Sucher put the Baptism at January
      6, 31 AD. STEINER SAID:
      "Thus it is correct to name the 6th of January
      as the day of Christ's birth . . . ." (from
      "The Birth of the Sun-Spirit as the Spirit of
      the Earth"; THE THIRTEEN HOLY NIGHTS; Hanover;
      26th December, 1911)

      Greub says:
      >> Concerning the issue whether Christ from the
      baptism in the Jordan to the crucifixion has
      lived two or three years, the scholars are still
      at odds. The duration of His activity is not
      fixed by conscious time references in the
      Gospels. . . .

      >> It is possible that the Passover, which
      occurs during the period of the pair-wise
      sending out of the apostles, is not mentioned in
      the Bible. This interpretation is supported by
      the spiritual research result of Rudolf Steiner
      on the date of the original Good Friday.

      >>. . . . the period from the baptism in the
      Jordan, which according to Luke took place at
      the beginning of the year 30 - the tradition
      cites 6 January - to the original Good Friday on
      April 3, 33 covers in any case three years and
      three months . . . .

      Comment: Does Luke really say "the year 30" or
      imply it? -- Neither. Together with Steiner and
      Josephus, he implies the year 31 AD. All of
      Steiner's statements, taken together, point to a
      2 1/4 year Incarnation, and Willi Sucher's
      astrosophical calculations support this. (So
      does Emil Bock, who reckons three Passovers
      during the Incarnation, including the one during
      the Crucifixion/Resurrection.)

      Greub says:
      >> . . . . the day of {Jesus Christ's] death may
      of course not become dependent on whether "a
      feast of the Jews" (Jn. 5:1) means Passah or

      Comment: But the Synoptic Gospels clearly point
      to the Passover.

      Greub says:
      >> According to Rudolf Steiner Jesus Christ was
      crucified on April 3, 33 at the age of thirty
      three. In both cases, one reaches the same date
      of birth, during Christmas of the year 2 B.C.<<

      Comment: Where exactly does RS say "the age of
      thirty three"? Greub gives no citation. Again,
      everything I've seen from Steiner points to an
      age of 32 1/4.

      Greub says:
      >> The dates of the life of Christ were known by
      Rudolf Steiner, who also precisely defined the
      age of the Crucified One: between the birth and
      death of Jesus Christ are 33 whole years plus as
      many days as Christ - after completing His
      three and thirty years around Christmas of the
      year 32 - lived until April 3, 33.<<

      Comment: Again: where exactly does RS say
      this? Greub keeps repeating himself, wrongly.

      Greub says:
      >>From Mt. 14:12-13, it may be concluded that
      between the beheading of John and the feeding of
      the 5000 barely one week passed.<<

      Comment: Matthew does say: "and when the
      people heard, they followed". To me, the
      Gospels are not clear on this timing.

      Greub says:
      >>Bock is right, the quote by Edwards is

      >>The facts of the matter are: Bock, as can
      clearly be deduced from his quotation, is
      convinced that after the terrible news, the pair
      wise sending out of the disciples takes place.
      However, Edwards wants us to believe that Christ
      has boarded a ship to sail to a lonely place.<<

      >>. . . . The question to be answered is: Does
      the pairwise sending out of the Disciples of
      Christ, thus the apostles, or the feeding of the
      5000 take place immediately after the death of

      >>. . . . These two theologians also took the
      supersensible realm into account, but they also
      have known the supersensible fact that the
      pairwise sending out of the disciples only
      became possible after the spiritual ego or I of
      John (through the beheading) had become free
      and, as it were, as a group-I enabled each
      individual disciple to preach powerful as John.

      >>This is also a secret of the three years.<<

      >>Bock was of the opinion that the Bethany
      period - which of course is identical
      to the pairwise sending out of the Twelve -
      lasted eight months. This is a more
      realistic indication than the view that three
      weeks would be enough. Nevertheless, Bock's
      statement is only a presumption. The Gospels
      remain silent about this period. We hear that
      the disciples, after being called back, reported
      to their Master. M. 6:30: "Now the apostles
      gathered to meet Jesus and reported to him all
      that they had done and taught." Or again L.
      9:10: "Then the apostles came back and described
      all they had done. He took them and retired in
      private to a town called Bethsaida."<<

      >>. . . . the Gospels cannot be used to compile
      a chronology: the Gospels are records of mystery
      traditions, not chronicles or biographies of
      Jesus Christ. The sending out period may have
      lasted eight months. It is just as possible that
      Christ retired for a whole year to Bethany.<<

      Comment: But the Incarnation did take place on
      Earth, in Earthly time. The Gospels seem to be
      ambiguous about the sending of the Twelve, but
      these events have to be squared with a coherent
      sequence of events. Bock puts the Sending at
      late Summer of 31 AD, after the beheading of
      John, and puts the return of the Twelve around
      Passover of the next year. -- Sucher, by the
      movements of Mercury, puts the Walking on the
      Water about five or six months after the Feeding
      of the Five Thousand, the Feeding of the Five
      Thousand shortly before Passover of 32 AD, and
      the Beheading in August of 31 AD. -- Thus Bock
      and Sucher together come up with a coherent
      chronology based on the written Gospels. And
      this allows for the spirit of the beheaded John
      to have been working with the Apostles during
      the pairwise sending.


      -- To sum up:

      I don't see any compelling reasons brought forth
      by Werner Greub to abandon the basics of my
      previously accepted chronology, as brought forth
      by Edwards, Bock, and Sucher. These basics are:

      January 6, 1 BC -- the birth of the Matthew-
      Solomon Jesus in a house in Bethlehem

      Probably then, or about then, the visit of the
      three "wise men", the "Magi" -- in consonance
      with the traditional "Three Kings Day"

      Then follows the "flight into Egypt"

      And then: the "massacre of the innocents" and
      "Herod's eclipse", not necessarily in that order

      Then the death of "Herod the Great"

      Then the Passover of 1 BC

      June 24, 1 BC -- the birth of John the Baptist,
      the traditional "St. John's Tide"

      December 24/5, 1 BC -- the birth of the Luke-
      Nathan Jesus in the stable in Bethlehem

      Around Passover of 11 or 12 AD -- the migration
      of the Zarathustra ego from the body of the
      Matthew-Solomon Jesus to the body of the Luke-
      Nathan Jesus, and the merger of the families

      Just before January 6, 31 AD -- the fateful
      conversation of the Zarathustra-Jesus with his
      mother, the departure of the Zarathustra ego

      January 6, 31 AD -- the Baptism of Jesus of
      Nazareth, the entry of the Cosmic Christ Ego --
      the traditional Epiphany -- around the same
      time, the entry of the Luke Mary ego into the
      body of the Matthew Mary

      April 3, 33 AD -- the Crucifixion, the "Mystery
      of Golgotha" -- followed by the Resurrection,
      the Ascension, and the Pentecost, at the usually
      accepted times

      -- These dates are in consonance with the
      remarks of Steiner, with the researches of Bock
      and Edwards, as well as the astrosophical
      calculations of Willi Sucher. As far as I can
      see, these all fit together nicely, with no
      stretching or straining. Greub and Powell must
      stretch and strain, in somewhat different ways
      (and Powell in great detail), but the staining
      is unnecessary and deleterious. Powell
      contradicts both Sucher and Steiner, and his
      dedications to them are very misleading.

      Apparently, Sucher's successors in astrosophy
      felt it necessary to distance themselves
      publicly from Powell's work. See:
      "Robert Powell claims . . . [that his] work is a
      'continuation' of and in the 'line of
      succession' to Willi Sucher's work. This is not
      the case . . . ." [etc.]

      May Jesus Christ help us all
      to think clearly and truthfully,

      Robert Mason


      (from Gospel of John: Lecture X: What Occurred
      at the Baptism? [3rd July, 1909; Kassel;

      "In about the thirtieth year of Jesus of
      Nazareth's life there entered into His three
      sheaths that divine Being Whom we call the
      "At the birth of the Christ, the Mother of Jesus
      of Nazareth became a virgin."
      ". . . . the healing of him who had lain sick
      for thirty-eight years by the Pool of Bethesda.
      . . . Now, however, the effect was intended not
      alone for the body, but for the very depths
      of the soul; for only in that way could Christ
      influence the nobleman's son through the
      mediation of his father, and only thus could He
      penetrate the sinful soul of him who had lain
      sick for thirty-eight years. To send His
      forces into the etheric body alone would not
      have sufficed: the astral body had to be acted
      upon, for it is the astral body that sins. . . .

      "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this
      temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
      Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this
      temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in
      three days? But he spake of the temple of his
      body. . . .

      "When at the Baptism the Christ was born in the
      body of Jesus of Nazareth, the Mother of Jesus
      of Nazareth became a virgin."

      APPENDIX 2

      (from Gospel of John: Lecture XIII: The Cosmic
      Significance of the Mystery of Golgotha.
      [Lecture: 6th July, 1909; Kassel; GA112])

      ". . . . He Who, in the thirtieth year of His
      Life, received the Christ into Himself . . . ."
      ". . . . [in *Matthew*] the physical line of
      heredity of that body into which Jesus of
      Nazareth, as an individual, had been born. Leave
      out Joseph, and the whole table becomes

      APPENDIX 3

      (from Willi Sucher: Letter 4 - August 1952)

      The Great Conjunction . . . .At the time of
      Christ, it had arrived in Fishes, and in 7 BC, a
      conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter took place in
      that part of the Zodiac.
      Many of you will recall what we have worked
      out in the past, in lectures, etc., about this
      Great Conjunction in 7 BC. We have discovered
      that it was connected with the Birth of Jesus,
      though we cannot share the view of many that the
      birth actually took place in 7 BC. The date of
      the birth of Jesus has become the subject of
      great controversies on account of difficulties
      with regard to the chronology of the events in
      Palestine at the beginning of the Christian Era.
      This chronology is based on the year of the
      foundation of Rome, whose date, itself, is not
      absolutely certain. According to the available
      historic sources, the information ranges from
      753 BC to 747 BC. Therefore, also the date of
      the death of Herod, which for instance plays a
      certain part in the accounts of the Gospels, is
      uncertain. This led to difficulties with regard
      to the actual date of the birth of Jesus
      recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke, and a belief
      has gradually come about that the celebration of
      Christmas on 25 December, referring to the year
      1 BC, is based on fiction. However, as there is
      no agreement on the foundation year of Rome, it
      is rather futile to take the modern views too
      seriously. We take the year 747 BC as the year
      of the foundation of Rome against 753 BC of
      orthodox science of history. The former date,
      given by the Roman historian Fabius Pictor, has
      been confirmed by Rudolf Steiner.
      You will remember that in our researches we
      simply took the traditional date of 25 December
      1 BC. Thereby we have achieved very
      illuminating results. For instance, the aspect
      of the sky at midnight of the traditional first
      Christmas reveals a very clear connection with
      the 6th century BC, even with that year 543 BC,
      which we mentioned above. Furthermore, we have
      found that the Great Conjunction of 7 BC is
      closely related to the sky of the original
      Christmas. That conjunction of Saturn and
      Jupiter in Fishes in 7 BC is the "Spiritual
      Nativity" belonging to the actual nativity on 25
      December 1 BC. (See Steiner's Cosmic and Human
      Thought, concerning the Spiritual Nativity.)
      . . . . We know that during the 9th century
      the historic Parsifal events took place. Facts
      and conclusions derived from the asterograms of
      Julian the Apostate and of Tycho Brahe suggest
      that the year 828 AD was most decisive with
      regard to the movement of the Holy Grail and
      Parsifal. (I presume that you know Rudolf
      Steiner's indications about Julian-Herzeleide-
      Tycho Brahe and, also of Herzeleide's connection
      with Parsifal.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.