Some of the folks who posted on these other threads made some very compelling cases for what the Star of Bethlehem was, and based on a number of these points I've concluded the following: If the information presented in the New Testament was accurate, then: 1) the "star" was not a comet, or supernova, or other such unusual celestial phenomenon; and 2) the Magi did not use the "star" to guide them to the right place.
I've read Molnar's book, don't think too highly of it. Astrologers in those days did not confuse planetary conjunctions with stars. A regular phenomenon like a bright Venus just before or after inferior conjunction with the sun, they might have referred to that as a star (evening star, morning star) as we still do; but a conjunction of planets would not have been termed a star, nor would it have looked like one for very long. And they certainly weren't referring to Venus.
Meanwhile the Chinese astrologers recorded a "hui-hsing" or broom star, perhaps a nova or supernova, in 5 BC. It remained visible for about 70 days (an unusually long period) and unlike most that were termed hui, there was no motion to it. If the records are accurate about its lack of motion and its duration, it wasn't a comet, yet it was classified as hui-hsing. In the official history, Chin-Shu, the term is defined: "Its body is a sort of star, while the tail resembles a broom." Also, a hui is a temporary star (or comet) that points in one direction. Nevertheless, the hui of 5 BC did not behave like a comet. IMO that's the one that merits a closer look.
The more interesting question, for me, was how this story of Magi locating the Messiah by astrological means, ever made it into the Holy Bible. Astrology being frowned upon in the Church.
Between the years 10 BC and 10 AD there were no gatherings of four of the visible planets in the Sun's glare while it was in the constellation of Aries. The generally accepted definition of "lost within the Sun's glare" is that time during which a planet is 15 degrees or less east or west of the Sun.
Further confusing the issue is the mention of the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6 as near the calendar date of the birth of Christ. The Sun was in Aries in late March and early April during that era, not around January 6.
He is right : he wasn't there--not even in the right century--and the writer of Matthew was. But he is certainly right about one other thing, that the magi had marvelous knowledge of the movements of the stars and planets. We also know, or should know, that we have forgotten most of the things that have happened since man appeared on this planet. Some things we have not.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
