The Star of Bethlehem?

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The PoJ is of no historical value##​

Some would disagree with this assertion.

For example, according to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

And since the Protoevangelium of James which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many, it is considered an important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Whether the details regarding the star are correct are not, we should at least admit that these documents seem to be one of the only other documents (besides the Scriptures themselves) which even address the issue of the star of Bethlehem within roughly contemporary periods.

Fundamentally, there is no distinction - a mere miracle is of no importance or interest or value whatever. A miracle - or rather, a sign - is an everyday event with extra-ordinary significance; that something is unusual or astounding is in itself of no importance. God became one of us in the most ordinary of circumstances.

I don’t know exactly what you mean.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The star in Matthew 2 is present in the Gospel to show that Christians understood the passage in Numbers 24 as having been fulfilled in Jesus.

I agree with this. It is clear that Matthew 2 connects with Numbers 24.

It’s the next part I’m not so sure of…

The passage in which the star occurs is a theological composition in the form of a story which is intended to convey some of the truth about Who this Child is. It is not a description of the historical details of the Birth of Jesus - stars, after all, do not do what the text says.

The passage may not be refering to literal “stars” though-- which seems to be part of the mysterious nature of these passages here.

Furthermore, there is a strong tradition that the Magi who visited Jesus came from Arabia (now Saudi Arabia), which lies between Mesopotamia and Palestine.

Thus in about AD 160 Justin Martyr wrote ‘Magi from Arabia came to him [Herod]’ and in about AD 96 Clement of Rome, associated frankincense and myrrh, two of the gifts of the Magi, with ‘the East, that is the districts near Arabia’.

We conclude that the Magi who saw the star of Bethlehem were most likely astronomers/astrologers, who may have been familiar with the Jewish prophecies of a Saviour-King, and who probably came from Arabia or Mesopotamia, countries to the east of Palestine.

Matthew 2:1 simply states ‘Magi from the East arrived in Jerusalem’.

It is important to realise that there are many references in ancient literature to Magi visiting kings and emperors in other countries.

For example, Tiridates, the King of Armenia, led a procession of Magi to pay homage to Nero in Rome in AD 66 (Suetonius, Nero 13 and 30; Tacitus, Annals, 16:23: Dio Cassius, Roman History, 63:1), and Josephus himself records that Magi also visited Herod in about 10 BC.

Thus a visit by the Magi to pay homage to Jesus, the new King of the Jews, would not have appeared as particularly unusual to readers of Matthew’s gospel.

However, as Colin Humphreys notes, the Magi must have had an unmistakably clear astronomical/astrological message to start them on their journey.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued…

It is not a description of the historical details of the Birth of Jesus - stars, after all, do not do what the text says.

Now I don’t necessarilly agree with everything that Humphreys has concluded. However, I find his historical research on the background for this event to be very interesting.

The curious terminology in Matthew 2:9 that the star ‘stood over’ seems to match similar phrases such as ‘stood over’ and ‘hung over’ which do appear uniquely applied in ancient literature to describe a comet.

The historians Dio Cassius and Josephus were broadly contemporary with the author of Matthew’s gospel.

Dio Cassius (Roman History, 54, 29) describing the comet of 12 BC (Halley’s comet) which appeared before the death of Marcus Agrippa writes ‘the star called comet stood for several days over the city [Rome]’.

Josephus (as already noted Jewish War 6,5,3) states** ‘a star, resembling a sword, stood over the city Jerusalem]’**, probably referring to the comet of AD 64 also mentioned by Tacitus (Annals, 15,47)-- with comets frequently being described as ‘swords’ in ancient literature because of their upward tails (in a direction away from the sun).

Marcellinus, for example, also describing a comet of AD 390 writes, ‘a sign appeared in the sky hanging like a column and blazing for 30 days’.

The identification of a comet with the star of Bethlehem goes back to Origen in the third century, and this is the earliest known theory for the ‘star’.

Origen (Contra Celsum 1, 58) stated

‘The star that was seen in the East we consider to be a new star … partaking of the nature of those celestial bodies which appear at times such as comets … If then at the commencement of new dynasties or on the occasion of other important events there arises a comet. . . why should it be a matter of wonder that at the birth of Him who was to introduce a new doctrine … a star should have arisen?’

So, to be fair, I don’t think it necessaeilly stands to reason that this “had to be” a literal star. It may have really been a comet, something which the ancients often thought of, similar to the planets, similar to ‘wandering stars’.

Perhaps this is what the writer of Jude 1:13 was refering to when he said, “…wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever…” But I honestly don’t know about this part.

A planet was sometimes called a ‘wandering star’. A meteor was sometimes called a ‘shooting star’. And a comet was sometimes called a ‘hairy star’ because its tail looked like a beard to some instead of a sword-- in fact, the name “comet” comes from the Latin word stella cometa or “hairy star” (and comets within Greek are kométés– standing for “long-haired”).

If true, these all seem to be possible candidates in our search as far as I can tell.

And, bearing these things in mind, it doesn’t necessarilly stand to reason that the Gospel accounts were not historical either. In fact, they seems to have to the earmarks of an authentic historical event as far as I can tell.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Very interesting info here as well, bethlehemstar.net/

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Regarding the cometary theory, we have this possibility regarding it’s particular motion…

If the star described in Matthew was a comet, was it seen twice, first in the east on its way in towards perihelion and again in the south on its way out, or was it seen continuously moving from east to south (and then to west) on its way out?

Matthew 2:9 states ‘the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them [to Bethlehem in the south]’. It was not generally recognised 2000 years ago that a comet seen twice, once on its way in towards perihelion (where it would disappear in the glare of the sun) and again on its way out was one and the same comet. It was normally regarded as two separate comets. Since Matthew 2:9 clearly implies that the star seen in the south was the same star as that originally seen in the east we deduce that the star was continuously visible and suggest that it was a comet on its way out from perihelion travelling east to south (to west).

In particular it is suggested that the Magi originally saw the comet in the east in the morning sky (see later). They travelled to Jerusalem, a journey time of 1- 2 months (see section 7), and in this time the comet had moved through about 90’, from the east to the south. In one month the star background would move through 30’, and in two months through 60*. For the comet to have moved through 90’ an additional 60’ (in one month) or 30’ (in two months) motion is required, which is broadly consistent with the 1 or 2 degrees per day typical motion of a comet.

In Jerusalem, Herod’s advisers suggested the Magi go to Bethlehem, six miles to the south and a journey time of one or two hours. The Magi set off next morning and saw the comet ahead of them in the south in the morning sky. Hence it appeared that the comet ‘went ahead of’ the Magi on this last lap of their journey.

And there’s many more variations on these themes too if you search with Google.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Regarding the planetary theory, we also have something like this…

Scholars increasingly suggest that the Star of Bethlehem was the star we know as the planet Jupiter, the king of planets representing the infant King of Kings. To get the details, astronomers like John Mosley need historians.

“You give me a period of time and I can find something in the sky that would have been sufficiently interesting to alert the wise men to send them on their journey,” says Mosley.

For the last one hundred years, most experts had said that Jesus was born about 7 B.C., contradicting what the early Church writers had said about 3 B.C.

Historian Ernest Martin contends those ancient authors had it right, enabling Mosley to reconstruct on his computer those skies of old.

“August 5, 3 B.C., August 9, and there on the morning of August 12, 3 B.C., Jupiter and Venus were in very close conjunction,” he explains. “I can zoom into a part of the so that you can see Venus and Jupiter almost touching. They were separated by about a fourteenth of a degree.”

The appearance of Jupiter and Venus cheek-to-cheek was likely enough to get the Magi on their camels headed to Jerusalem because the conjunctions all took place in the constellation of the Lion that represented Israel to the Babylonians.

“Astrology is nothing more than a corruption of primitive truth that we can find in the Scripture,” says Martin. “But astronomy and signs in the heavens that God did give to introduce His Son into the world are valid.”

Jupiter and Venus represented a father and mother, and from them you’d expect a royal baby to be born. That is apparently what the Magi thought.

“But by the time the Magi got there about 15 months later, he was now a ‘padeion,’” notes Martin. “He was a toddler.”

But the Magi had more to see before they got to Bethlehem. Jupiter came close to the star Regulus, yet another symbol of royalty, not once, but three times in a looping pattern reminiscent of a celestial crown.

“Venus comes in and is in conjunction with Jupiter,” explains Mosley. “Beneath the Lion, to the left of Regulus, June 17, 2 B.C.”

“And we find that Jupiter in its two very close conjunctions with Venus and then three close conjunctions with the star Regulus over a ten-month period of time satisfies our concept of what would have been very exciting to the Magi and that’s why we pick Jupiter as the Star,” says Mosley.

So, the Magi would have viewed these events like a billboard in the sky that says a mighty king has been born in Israel!

Once they’d made their long ‘star trek’ to Jerusalem, scribes there told them to make the brief journey to Bethlehem. After all, the Scriptures tell of a king rising from the city of David.

Next, the return of Jupiter, once again, this time in the womb of the constellation of the Virgin. Martin interprets this as a symbol of the Virgin Mary with child and a guide for the Magi.

“They just saw it come to a stop mid-body to Virgo in the direction of Bethlehem and they went by the direction of an angel and they gave their gifts to the Christ child,” says Martin.

The date, about December 25, 2 B.C., New Testament scholar Peter Jones says God brought those astrologically wacky gurus to Jesus for a reason that’s still valid for the unique people in our own lives.

And there’s many more variations on this themes too if you search with Google.

There’s also star themes involving supernova and plenty of other speculations and well informed theories as well.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Maybe this has been recommended already, but if not, I am recommeding it: a video titled The Star of Bethlehem (from producer Stephen McEveety - The Passion of the Christ.)

I’m going to rent that if it’s available. Thanks.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is not Catholic teaching, however I think there is something to it.

didyouknow.cd/xmas/Jesus.htm

Hmmm…I never noticed that before in this particular perspective…

I knew that early Christians appear to have not celebrated the birth of Christ as far as we can tell. It was later celebrated in the Church. And then later, much later in fact, Christmas became widely popular (outside the Church) only in the 19th Century.

In addition to that, the Greek term us in the Bible for star, “aster”, can mean any luminous heavenly body, including a comet, meteor, nova, or planet.

didyouknow.cd/xmas/Jesus.htm

In Palestine - as in the rest of the Middle East at the time - shepherds stayed with their flocks in the fields only from Spring to Autumn. They brought their sheep in during the winter to protect them from the cold and rain. It is thus unlikely that the shepherds went to Bethlehem in December.

I have to admit that I myself have wondered about this part.

Is this true?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I’m going to rent that if it’s available. Thanks.

If you are unable to rent it, I would recommend buying it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Very interesting info here as well, bethlehemstar.net/

Heres’ more too…

In 3/2 BC, Jupiter’s retrograde wandering would have called for our magus’ full attention. After Jupiter and Regulus had their kingly encounter, Jupiter continued on its path through the star field. But then it entered retrograde. It “changed its mind” and headed back to Regulus for a second conjunction. After this second pass it reversed course again for yet a third rendezvous with Regulus, a triple conjunction. A triple pass like this is more rare. Over a period of months, our watching magus would have seen the Planet of Kings dance out a halo above the Star of Kings. A coronation.

Ok,so then here’s a question…is it possible for Jupiter to have done even more than this as this same time?

 

[didymus]

Actually, it’s not that off-topic, since I had Lucifer Rising from Arthur C. Clark’s 2010 in mind.

Arthur C. Clarke penned these words in his science fiction novel, 2010: Odyssey Two–a book/movie sequel to his 1968 work, 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Unknown to those who only watched 2010, there was a major difference between the motion picture and the novel. Eerily, the book contained a section titled “Lucifer Rising.”

In Clarke’s Lucifer Rising story line, the hydrogen atmosphere on the planet Jupiter is ignited. The ensuing new “little” sun is dubbed “Lucifer” and illuminates the earth with its light.

The result: darkness no longer existed. Fear, suspicion, and crimes of the night disappear. Mankind has become illuminated through the light of Lucifer.

To occultists and New Agers, the symbology of Arthur C. Clarke’s writing was unmistakable. Lucifer, the “light bearer” shines his knowledge (occult “truth”) upon all humanity, chasing away fear and ignorance, and providing mankind with the opportunity to discover his own intellect.

Let’s not blame Mr. Clarke for the symbology New Agers might attach to his work. In the book/movie 2010 all that is stated is that all the moons of Jupiter (now “Lucifer”) are for mankind’s use except Europa.

Putting aside Clarke’s anti-Christian ideas for a moment and converting them as far as possible toward Christian thought, I’m wondering if Jupiter actually could have been briefly covered with aurora, thus appearing as a “born again” star shining more brilliantly in the heavens during the time of the magi’s sojourne to Bethlehem.

What Arthur C. Clarke called Lucifer I would call the Star of Bethlehem-- since Jesus is the true “bright and morning star” and the devil is not.

I don’t know if it’s accurate to describe Clarke as “anti-Christian”. As far as I know he was an atheist and, like many “hard” science fiction writers of his generation his writings either ignore religion or assume that it will disappear with the march of scientific progress.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Let’s not blame Mr. Clarke for the symbology New Agers might attach to his work. In the book/movie 2010 all that is stated is that all the moons of Jupiter (now “Lucifer”) are for mankind’s use except Europa.

Come now didymus.

He uses a name like Lucifer as a symbol for a whole new order of the world coming in?

I’m not searching for the devil in every nook and cranny, but I don’t think it’s just new agers attaching this meaning to his work. I’m not saying that Clarke himself was a new ager. He was an atheist as far as I can tell. But he certainly seems to be borrowing from some thoughts which can be traced to new age movements that are dated from well before the time his books were published.

If he’s going to use this type of symbolism he knows (or must have known, God rest his soul) full well the meaning that others would pick up from it.

I don’t know if it’s accurate to describe Clarke as “anti-Christian”. As far as I know he was an atheist and, like many “hard” science fiction writers of his generation his writings either ignore religion or assume that it will disappear with the march of scientific progress.

Perhaps so. Sometimes he seemed ambivalent toward religion, and sometimes he seemed like a deist, and many times his novels did seem to explore religious ideas quite a bit-- for that I’m thankful.

Even so, when someone writes a novel that makes out the Star of Bethlehem to be a supernova which wipes out an entire race of people on another planet, and so directly contrasts this to our Christian faith, one can’t help but think that they’re suggesting that religion is either insane or malevolent or both.

Quite frankly, some of his quotes toward religion do put him in the anti-Christian category as far as I can tell.

If he wants to poke fun at creationism, I’ll repsect that but make sure to give my two cents worth in the exchange.

However, if he wants to claim that religion itself is the most malevolent of all mind viruses, then that’s going way too far. If this is true, then yes I will most certainly place him not too far from the category that Richard Dawkins smugly sits in.

Don’t get me wrong-- I think he has some very interesting concepts and asks some cool questions regarding God-like concepts. But, on the whole, I don’t really see him as being an assistance to Christianity. In fact, based on arguments like this, I’d suggest that he is generally against Christianity-- or at least doesn’t really understand it too well.

“The rash assertion that ‘God made man in His own image’ is ticking like a time bomb at the foundation of many faiths, and as the hierarchy of the universe is disclosed to us, we may have to recognize this chilling truth: if there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they cannot be very important gods.”

– Arthur C. Clarke, scientist and author, 1965

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Star of Bethlehem: A Natural-Supernatural Hybrid?

ibri.org/DVD-1/Papers/StarofBethlehem/75starbethlehem.htm

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Star of Bethlehem: A Natural-Supernatural Hybrid?

ibri.org/DVD-1/Papers/StarofBethlehem/75starbethlehem.htm

This is an interesting link too Daniel. Thank you for posting this.

I guess what I was also wondering if Jupiter itself could also appear more brilliant at times, being covered in whitish areas or perhaps auroras.

For example, back on December 17th, 1903, a white spot was observed on the planet, appearing to grow from a point to a “bright oblique rift” within five minutes. The observer in Ceylon, a man by the name of Major Molesworth, wrote in the Royal Astronomical Society that “with a lengthy experience in observing Jupiter, [he had] never before noticed any such change in this region of the planet, but [was] perfectly assured that the phenomena was real.”

This was reported in Nature, 27:207, June 29, 1905.

If it was real, an extraordinarilly large area had changed color in an unbelievably short time.

At another time, on two successive nights in 1919, a white spot on Jupiter appeared to project “above” the edge of the planet as the clouds’ swift rotation carried it around. This was observed by Frank Sargent of Bristol. England and reported in Nature, 102:432, January 30, 1919.

In addition to these reports, early in August 1928, it was observed in Jupiter’s south-tropical cloud belt seemed to emit a number of dark spots that traveled faster than the general rotation of the clouds in that zone. Most passed north of the Great Red Spot, but a few actually entered into it and dissapeared.

Perhaps comets had struck and left holes in the upper atmosphere, or perhaps substorms built up revealing a deeper layer of clouds. This, in my mind, seems to suggest some strange aurora activity-- and the report by Frank Sargent almost appears similar to a solar prominence rising from the Sun to be honest.

Either way, like the observations of 1903 and 1919 suggest, it appears that some disturbances can occur on Jupiter more rapily than what is normally observed.

I have a cautious suspicion that Jupiter’s atmosphere can briefly become “supercharged” so to speak, with brilliant aurora covering its surface, increasing its luminosity, and appearing as brilliant as a “bright star”.

If one adds this possibilty to the configuration of astronomical arrangements, it would definitely be “a sign” that the astrologers would take super extra note of-- and yet, generally speaking, not be noticeable enough to draw attention of others who were not actually watching the heavens.

 

[Boyk]

I was listening to Relevant Radio a Catholic station during Advent. The guest was Rick Larson the author of the book and movie, “The Star of Bethlehem” Is is produced by Stephen McEveety who also produced “The Passion of the Christ” It peaked my interest so I bought the DVD. My wife and I were utterly bewildered by the content. It opened our eyes to the glory of God. I was looking for some feedback relating to this subject from a Catholic purspective…
I could not see any clear endorsements by the Catholic Church. I am Catholic and I want to make sure the content of this material is safe to use for Evangelism purposes.
If any one has seen the movie or for a recap please see bethlehemstar.net/
If this isn’t Catholic teaching can someone point out some specific areas contrary to Catholic teaching?

Most greatful,
Boyk