Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Star of Bethlehem [Bristol Astronomical Society]
Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution ^ | Rod Jenkins

Posted on 12/19/2006 9:31:25 AM PST by Alex Murphy

The Star of Bethlehem Meeting chaired by Richard Phillips

Rod Jenkins

Bristol Astronomical Society

7 January 2005

This talk was originally scheduled for 3 December 2004 - just before the speaker’s paper was published in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association vol. 114 No. 6. A full account with references appears in that publication on pp. 336-341.

According to Giotto, the Star of Bethlehem is shown in his painting The Adoration of the Magi as a comet - presumably Halley’s as it appeared during his lifetime. For this reason the space probe sent to study Halley’s comet in 1986 was called Giotto.

Primary Sources of Information

The Gospel according to St. Matthew Chapter 2 vv 1-16. Although there is an account of the Nativity by St. Luke, he does not mention a star, Magi or Herod.

There are variations between the translations of the King James, New Revised, New English and the New International versions of the Bible, which have to be clarified. The ‘star in the East’ becomes ‘star at its rising’ and is interpreted as the ‘star at its heliacal rising’ or literally from the Greek ‘star in the first rays of dawn’. The Greek original ‘Magi’ becomes variously ‘wise men’, ‘astrologers’, ‘scholars who were students of the stars’, ‘envoys’, etc.

Careful analysis of St. Matthew’s Gospel reveals a number of points which are sometimes misquoted or misinterpreted. For example: it is not stated explicitly or implicitly that the Magi followed the star to Jerusalem; the number of Magi is not specified; there is no reference to their being kings; the text does not say that Herod had not seen the star - it merely says he inquired when it had first appeared; there is no clue as to the brightness of the star other than it was obviously visible to the naked eye.

Most though not all scholars now accept that Jesus was born between 7 and 5 BC. St. Matthew’s Gospel depended on that of St. Mark so it could not have been written before AD 70 and it is generally accepted to have been written between AD 80 and AD 100. This means that the author was unlikely to have remembered the events surrounding the birth of Jesus though they would have been in touch with some that had; therefore it is improbable that the author was Matthew the disciple. The account was written after the Jewish uprising of AD 66 and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Possible Explanations

It was (a) a miraculous event, (b) an astrological event, (c) and astronomical event, (d) a UFO, (e) a fictional event.

a. If it was a miraculous event, it does not lend itself to scientific study. Although the assumption that it was not a miraculous event is made on the basis that ‘scientifically, miracles should not happen’ may be considered narrow-minded, theologians have argued that excluding the idea of a miracle is perfectly acceptable and consistent with Christian belief. If it was a miracle, the case is closed and nothing more can be said about it.

b. Strong astrological explanations have included: a triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in 7 BC; a series of conjunctions involving planets and the star Regulus in 3 and 2 BC; the heliacal rising of Jupiter and its occultation by the Moon in 6 BC and the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in 2 BC. There are strong arguments for each of these explanations but little that can authenticate any one of them. Furthermore there is no causal relationship between the phenomena and Earthly happenings. If there is no substance to a prediction then no matter how hard it is believed, it will never ever come true, except perhaps by coincidence. Consequently, if the wise men saw such a sign in the sky, interpreted it and followed it, they would almost certainly not have found what they were looking for.

c. Many astronomical candidates have been put forward, including a nova, a supernova, a meteor, a meteor stream, a fireball, a comet, ball lightning, aurora and any number of bright stars and planets. Most are too commonplace and others don’t fit Matthew’s description. There are no relevant astronomical events worthy of note during the period of interest. The appearance of Halley’s comet in 12 BC was well before the birth of Jesus. The same argument against astrological explanations applies here too - there is no causal connection between any such astronomical event and the birth of Jesus. In addition, in spite of the search by astronomers for possible physical manifestations of the star, there is no accepted answer to date, which itself points to the conclusion that the Star of Bethlehem was not an astronomical event.

d. To date no form of life has yet been detected beyond the confines of this planet and whether intelligent life exists is still open to question. There is no scientific evidence that confirms the existence of alien spacecraft so the chance of a UFO being the Star of Bethlehem must be very close to zero.

e. So was the Star of Bethlehem just a fictional story? Well, with the failure of explanations (a) to (d), it must seem so. There seem to be no causal connections between events for explanations (b) and (c) and (a) and (d) are outside the realm of scientific enquiry. There are further observations to be made:

The Magi had travelled a long way, met Herod and gave their gifts and then disappeared from the story - they seem to have lost interest in the momentous event in which they have played so big a part. There is nothing in astrological or astronomical records of the time, Chinese or otherwise, of any especially momentous celestial event like a supernova or nova. Conjunctions and comets happen all the time so why were there not Magi setting out at other times? Although Josephus chronicled many of Herod’s atrocities, there is no record of him slaughtering children. Historical records have referred to other ‘guiding stars’ to emphasise a great event such as in Virgil’s report that a star guided Aenas to the place where Rome was to be built. According to a late Jewish midrash, Magi told Nimrod that a bright star signalled the birth of a person who was destined to conquer this world and the next (Abraham). The Gospel was written in an age of oral history and myth. It was common in such histories to fill in the blanks with unusual phenomena to emphasise the uniqueness and transcendental nature of a great event. Matthew’s Gospel is a midrashic expansion of the one by Mark. Other examples of Jewish ‘midrash’ include Jesus’ childhood, his temptation in the wilderness (no one was there to witness it) or the details of Judas Iscariot’s betrayal and demise. Matthew wanted to convince a Jewish audience that Jesus was the Messiah by showing that his birth had fulfilled the prophesies which said there had to be a star. Although Luke described a solar eclipse during Jesus’ crucifixion, he made no reference of any other astronomical phenomena at Jesus’ birth. Jesus himself made no reference to any extraordinary events surrounding his birth. Matthew’s Inspiration

The Jewish uprising of AD 66, leading to the humiliation of the Jews in the Roman-Jewish war, was accompanied by the appearance of Halley’s comet. Comets were considered as harbingers of momentous - usually disastrous events. In AD 70, just before Matthew wrote his Gospel, the Temple was destroyed.

According to the Chinese the comet had a 12° long tail at its appearance just before dawn in the east (a heliacal rising). Josephus wrote "Amongst the warnings, a comet, of a kind called Xiphias because their tails appear to represent the blade of a sword, was seen above the city"

It was visible throughout the hours of darkness from February 20 to April 10, moving from east to west against the background stars and was as bright as the brightest stars in mid March. As it faded, its motion slowed so that it might have appeared stationary in the southern sky in the evening (‘standing over’ Bethlehem from the point of view of anyone living in Jerusalem).

It is clear that this description of the comet is compatible with Matthew’s account and no other comet visible during the period AD 60-100 coincides so closely. According to Pliny, in AD 66, Tiridates led a procession of Magi to pay homage to Nero in Rome. On the way they may have passed by the Greek-speaking Jewish/Christian communities of N and NE Syria where it is believed the gospel originated. After Nero had confirmed Tiridates King of Armenia, the party returned by sea (i.e. by a different route).

Although this cannot be the last word as more evidence might come to light in the future, it seems likely that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet - Halley’s - though it did not appear at the time of Jesus’ birth.

Richard H Phillips


TOPICS: Mainline Protestant; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: archaeoastronomy; bethlehem; christmas; godsgravesglyphs; johanneskepler; richardhphillips; star; starofbethlehem; staroftheeast

1 posted on 12/19/2006 9:31:27 AM PST by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
According to Giotto, the Star of Bethlehem is shown in his painting The Adoration of the Magi as a comet - presumably Halley’s as it appeared during his lifetime. For this reason the space probe sent to study Halley’s comet in 1986 was called Giotto.

A comet is a sign, not a star. 'We have seen His star' (So have I)

Keep looking.

2 posted on 12/19/2006 12:48:55 PM PST by Jeremiah Jr (Saturn is in Leo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Occasionally this sort of explanation is mentioned regarding authorship of the Gospels:

"St. Matthew’s Gospel depended on that of St. Mark so it could not have been written before AD 70 and it is generally accepted to have been written between AD 80 and AD 100."

This is usually accompanied with "scholars agree ..." Perhaps they do; I (not a scholar) do not, since the conclusion is stated without the argument. The arguments I have seen are not persuasive.


3 posted on 12/19/2006 3:05:29 PM PST by Daffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffy

There is no "general acceptance"; there are numerous scholarly claims. None of the gospels mention the catclysmic destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.; the omission of such an event, when the Gospels mention several other lesser historical notes, is inconceivable. That argues for a pre-70A.D. gospel creation.

Personally I believe the gospels all began to be committed to writing in the decade after the Crucifixion; Jesus' story was that important to the early community.


4 posted on 12/20/2006 9:33:03 AM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nabber

Your observations about the failure to mention the destruction of the temple in addition to referring in the present tense to historical sites destroyed in 70AD is a problem many of those espousing the latter composition of the Gospels ignore.


5 posted on 12/21/2006 6:26:18 PM PST by bronx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bronx

They argue for later dates not because they are good historians but because they have an agenda. The agenda is that these gospel stories were committed to writing so long after the deeds of Jesus life that they are suspect, much like the game of "gossip" or "telephone" from our younger days. It is so vital to them to argue for the later dates that they ignore the "Destruction of the Temple" logic I described above.


6 posted on 12/21/2006 6:57:56 PM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nabber; bronx

"... because they have an agenda."

Exactly.


7 posted on 12/21/2006 9:01:24 PM PST by Daffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· 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
 Google
 LiveScience
 Mirabilis.ca
 Nat Geographic
 PhysOrg
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Yahoo
 Excerpt, or Link only?
 


Note: this topic is from December 19, 2006.

Blast from the Past.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
 

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·


8 posted on 11/30/2010 6:32:56 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson