Posted on 12/29/2005 4:21:23 PM PST by NYer
Dec. 28, 2005 - " ... during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, 'Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.'" - Matthew 2:1-2
They are requisite figures in every nativity scene: Three elegantly dressed exotic men, camels in tow, weighed down with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. They are always a few steps removed, seeming to defer to the farm animals surrounding the young mother and her newborn.
Accuracy is not a hallmark of either marketing or religious traditions, which is why nativity scenes feature the three wise men, even though the only written account of these curious travelers has them arriving at a house, not a stable, and not immediately after Jesus' birth.
In fact, Christian tradition marks the Feast of the Epiphany on Jan. 6 as the date the Magi arrived in Jerusalem saying they were following a bright star to a newborn king.
But what if it didn't happen that way? What if there was no star? What if - gasp - it was just a literary device the gospel writer used to convey that Jesus was, indeed, a king? After all, Augustus Caesar had used astrology as an excuse for why people should follow him. He attempted to show that of all the different heirs of Julius Caesar had the will of the gods behind him because of a particular heavenly constellation that appeared at his birth.
So many questions, so little time. Lucky for me, Guy Consolmagno likes questions. (And let me issue a warning right now: If you cling to a literal interpretation of biblical texts, do not continue reading.)
Consolmagno is the curator of meteors for the Vatican Observatory Group, a consortium of Jesuit scientists who study everything from the Big Bang to black holes to the expanding universe. Many of them are stationed at the University of Arizona, but a few like Consolmagno - a planetary scientist with degrees from MIT and the UA - work from the group's observatory just outside of Rome. It is at Castel Gondolfo that Consolmagno baby-sits 4.5 billion-year-old pieces of the solar system and plays "You can borrow mine if I can borrow yours" with the Smithsonian, the British Museum of Natural History and Japan's Institute for Polar Research.
He visits fellow Jesuits at the UA each fall, and has an abiding interest in the star of Bethlehem, so he was the perfect person with whom to discuss Michael Molnar's book, "Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi."
Was there a star?
"We don't know," he says, matter-of-factly, "We weren't there."
But, Consolmagno adds, of all the theories that aim to prove the famed star's existence, Molnar's rings most true. Molnar posits that the star was actually a heliacal rising - a group of planets rising with the sun - and could not be seen because the presence of the sun among planets makes them virtually invisible.
But if the star wasn't visible, how could the Magi follow it?
Ancient astronomers, Consolmagno said, could calculate the positions of the planets by marking where they had been over a large period of time and then extrapolating forward. Knowing where the stars and planets are is not of primary importance to astrologers, however; the key is knowing what those locations mean.
"The positions of the stars are like a code," Consolmagno said, adding that both astronomers and astrologers could "agree the code says XYnn4, but then we'd argue interpretation."
"Astronomers don't see cause and effect between what we see in the sky and events in human life, but astrologers do. In the process of this interpretation, they come up with rules they think explain what happens on earth. Among the rules is that certain parts of the sky represent certain parts of the earth," he explained. "As near as we can tell, (ancient astrologers) believed things that happened in the constellation of Aries represented things going on in Syria and Jerusalem," and planets rising with the sun signified the birth of a king.
Which would explain the proclamation of a star no one but three Persian astrologers could see: They were "seeing" it not in the sky, but on an astrological map.
Matthew's gospel offers "a perfectly reasonable story," Consolmango said, but what intrigues the Jesuit astronomer is using modern science to calculate if there really was a time when four planets rose with the sun.
"Indeed, this did happen at just the right time to match up with the other things we know about the time Jesus was born," he said. "So, from a scientific point of view, we know there was an astronomical event, but does it prove anything? No."
He pauses, sipping his coffee, waiting to deliver the theological punch line.
"Ultimately, for how I'm going to live my life, it doesn't matter. If you showed me a tablet inscribed by God saying it was all a myth, I'd still have to live my life the same way because this isn't an essential to my faith. The essential truths to my faith are the existence of God, the sonship of Jesus and the presence of the Holy Spirit."
From a Christian theological perspective, he's absolutely correct. But try telling that to the little kids wrapped in bathrobes and sporting Burger King hats at Christmas pageants.
"If you showed me a tablet inscribed by God saying it was all a myth, I'd still have to live my life the same way because this isn't an essential to my faith."
Piffle. If the gospel writers didn't get that right, how can you be sure they got anything else right?
What part of "all scripture is given by inspiration of God"
don't you get?
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.
If the star was just an ordinary celestial event, then it would have been visible to everyone; and Herod's own astrologers or interpreters would have seen it as early as the Wise Men did, and it would have come as no surprise.
But the text says that all Jerusalem was troubled when they heard that sages had arrived saying they had seen the star announcing the birth of the messiah.
So most likely none of the ordinary explanations fit.
These people will go to any length to 'try' to disprove or discredit the Bible...
While the astrologers ( or "wise men" ) may have calculated the time and place deemed "most auspicious" for the arrival or birth of a VIP, possibly to be interpreted as the Messiah, all of their calculations would not necessarilly tell them WHO that person was..
Only Where and When..
It then comes down to how many children were born in Bethlehem on that day/night when conditions were best..
How many were actually MALE..
How many male children actually survived the executions tradition says Herod ordered..
Lastly, how many male children fulfilling all the aforementioned prerequisites, and additionally, fullfilling all the other requirements listed by the prophets ( lineage, etc..) as well..
A remarkable set of "circumstances".. ( I won't say coincidence ) ..
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.
King Herod believed the 3 Magi and wasted no time executing all of the male children, 2 years and under.
Giotto di Bondone
No. 21 Scenes from the Life of Christ
Massacre of the Innocents
1304-06 -- Fresco
Cappella Scrovegni (Arena Chapel), Padua
Gospel - Matthew 2:13-18
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the Child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you: for Herod is about to search for the Child, to destroy Him." And he rose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son."
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation:
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled because they were no more."
"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."
Who says they used astrology? "A star shall rise out of Jacob" isn't anything that needs interpreting by an astrologer. And who says the wise men were astrologers?
They might only have read the prophecy in Numbers, they might have been Jewish; all the text says is that they were "wise men". ("Magi" covers a lot of territory, and is in any case a Greek translation of a Hebrew word in Matthew.)
The author of the gospel of Matthew. They said "where is he...for we have seen his star...and have come to worship him." If that doesn't make it obvious, it further states that they used the star as a guide. No question they were following a star they could see, and that they attached to it an astrological signficance, and that they used their astrological learning to indicate who was born and where He'd be.
I won't quibble about whether they were astrologers or not, and I didn't call them astrologers, I said they used astrological means. The gospel is crystal clear on that.
If the information in the New Testament is accurate it would not have been something like a supernova at all. The key is that the Magi saw something in the sky that was in plain sight but wasn't readily visible (understandable) to most people -- including King Herod and his scholars. This would seem to clearly indicate that it was some kind of celestial event that looked quite ordinary to most people but was extraordinary to someone who had a thorough understanding of the night sky.
They probably weren't using the star as a guide, either. The region we now know as the Middle East covered a lot of area, but the Magi coming from the East would likely have known where they were going. The New Testament refers to them "seeing his star in the east," and yet they were traveling in a westward direction -- so the star served no purpose in terms of pointing them to the right place.
Because the Magi were astromonist instead?
"So most likely none of the ordinary explanations fit."
So aptly describing God.
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.
Sure they were using it as a guide, an indicator. They said that's why they came. The word in the gospel is "gar" which is Greek for "because." The reason they were asking where the child was, was because they'd seen the star. Then "the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. When they saw the star they rejoiced..." How else did they find the child, whose name they didn't know, nor his location until the star stood over where he lay?
As for the word east, there's a lot of room for interpretation in that. The word was anatole, and it means east, daybreak, the place of daybreak. Just because they came from the east, doesn't mean they couldn't follow the star to Bethlehem. Stars appear to move when the earth turns, and comets do move. If a month passed it's anybody's guess where the star was first seen and where it went, based on nothing more than the word "east."
It's also possible that the star was noticeable or conspicuous somehow when it first appeared, so they interpreted it as a sign of the birth of the king; but by the time they got to Bethlehem it wasn't very conspicuous, except to them, because they knew where to look. We are used to thinking of it as a brilliant, uniquely brilliant star, but perhaps it was merely unique and special to very few who knew their stars.
Late March to early April is when the mysterious hui star of 5 BC was first observed.
Yes. I have here a copy the General Catalog of Variable Stars (Moscow, 1971) and it lists that object in the table of suspected ancient novae and supernovae. It was first seen on March 24, 5 BC, and remained visible for 76 days. The compilers of the catalog remarked "Either Venus or a comet could be observed" -- that's a translation from Russian, so the more literal may be "It was either Venus or a comet."
Whatever it was, it apparently was in the constellation of Capricorn, meaning it would be have been visible in the southeast or south, depending on the time of morning before sunrise that it was observed.
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.