7 Decades of Sky & Telescope - Now Available!
Top 5 Most Recent Articles
  1. Comet Garradd Stays the Course
  2. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs
  3. The Spin's the Thing
  4. This Week's Sky at a Glance
  5. Show Your Support for Pluto's Probe
Top 5 Most Popular Articles
  1. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs
  2. February 6 - 12, 2012
  3. The Spin's the Thing
  4. Comet Garradd Stays the Course
  5. Choosing Your First Telescope
Top 5 Most Emailed Articles
  1. Show Your Support for Pluto's Probe
  2. Comet Garradd Stays the Course
  3. This Week's Sky at a Glance
  4. Galaxy in a Bucket
  5. A Rare Flyby of Asteroid Eros


home > skytel > skytel beyond the page
email this > print this > save this > rss >

Your Thoughts on Bethlehem's Starry Night

by the Editors of Sky & Telescope

Nina Alden Thune
In the December issue of Sky & Telescope, Aaron Michael Adair compares the various astronomical theories behind the fabled Star of Bethlehem and examines whether any of them are plausible at all. His conclusion may have surprised you.

Now we want your take. Feel free to join in on the conversation about this topic.

Post a Comment
The following comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sky Publishing.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.

First comments (from 123)

Star of Bethlehem

Posted by Robert Allen October 25, 2007 At 07:53 AM PDT
Aaron, Regarding the date of the alleged star, has anyone investigated the possibility that it could be an astronomical event taking place during the time of the author of the Gospel of Matthew (~100AD give or take 30 years)? It would be interesting to look at months around significant contemporary Christian holy days of the time. If such an event did take place, it could explain why it does not appear in the other earlier biblical texts (because it didn't happen at Jesus' birth but much later and was inserted into the Bible as 'Historically' real event). Uncertainties about the date of Jesus' birth are no surprise as contradictions and pre-Christian (mainly Jewish, taken from Babylonian, and pagan) mythologies abound in the canonical Biblical texts (see "The Bible Against Itself" Randall Helms). Ultimately, whatever discoveries are made about astronomical events during biblical times will not sway the faithful, but will help the rest of us to peer into the minds of the people of those times, how they perceived the world around them, and why they applied significance to astronomical events to explain a world they clearly didn't understand. Thanks, Robert Allen

Star of Bethlehem article

Posted by William Hathaway October 25, 2007 At 12:34 PM PDT
Finally, Aaron Adair has given readers a clear view of this topic, which as he points out, has generated "Hundreds if not thousands of articles." I fully agree with his "obvious explanation." I would add a few notes: I've read that some planetarium presenters have been called upon to give a holiday show on this every year so many times that they occasionally refer to it as the "SOB" story. Take that in whatever way one might. Second - it is common to interpret that the 'magi' came from "the East", but reading the text; "we have seen his star in the east" could also be interpreted that the *star* was in the east - and the magi could well have been standing anywhere they happened to be when such observation would have been made. They did not have to come from the east. That could merely be the direction in which they saw the 'star.' See next point for a supporting rationale for this interpretation. Third - as clearly stated, a 'miraculous star' is a common theme in such myths. What had been the standard star for such? Sirius - the much older Egyptian heliacal rising to signal the beginning of the annual flood season. And what trio "see the star in the east" and are used to presage its appearance? The three belt stars of Orion. Used to this time as pointers to anticipate the entertaining view of this brightest of stellar risings through the thick horizon atmosphere. A simple (if garbled) reuse of an age-old tale to suit the need for a miraculous birth. This does provide an astronomical relevance - if only as a sky calendar marker for the seasons. Finally - a re-statement of the "believer vs. historian" theme: "faith needs no evidence; evidence requires no faith." If one wants to believe, one is free to follow anything. If one needs proof, then this Star is indeed "not investigable." Perhaps the need to tell stories is the answer to why astronomers indulge the ticket buyers. All respect, Wm. H.

Test

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:50 PM PDT
Hello, this is a bit of self-introduction and testing of the comment board. I am the same Aaron that is responsible for this article and I hope to try to answer at least some of the questions posted here.

Reply to RA and WH

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:51 PM PDT
It would appear that this article is already producing some very good questions. Let's see how I can do. Firstly, for Robert: in finding an astronomical phenomenon within a close period of time to the writing of the Gospel of Matthew is difficult for perhaps the most obvious reason--no one really knows when it was written. Some scholars have tried to argue for a pre-70 CE date for Mark, Matthew, and Luke, while others have placed it to the near-end of the 2nd century. With a century-spread in opinions, it can be very difficult to start pinning dates down. So, I will make a few comments to these possible date ranges. As for the pre-70 (actually, pre-65) is based on the Book of Acts not mentioning the death of Paul but instead his interment in Rome. This seems to be a weak argument because it does seem like the author knows what happens to Paul. Before he leaves in Acts 20 the people act as if they were seeing him for the last time; also, in 27:23-7 Paul knows that he must stand trial before Nero, which is part of latter legend (not to mention Paul being executed soon after). There is also substantial evidence that Luke used Josephus as a source, placing Luke/Acts at the end of the 1st century at least. (See Richard Carrier's article on the Secular Web.) It should also be noted that because of the knowledge of the destruction of the 2nd temple, most critical scholars place the writing of Mark (the first gospel) at about that time (70 CE). The general consensus is that Mark was written in about the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s to 90s, John in the 90s. I will not make the argument here, but there seems to be some good suggestions for an even later date (2nd century for all of the canonical gospels). No matter the case, it is a major uncertainty.

Reply to RA and WH 2

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:52 PM PDT
As for some star coinciding with some major religious event or festival in the times of the gospel writers: I have not seen much on that subject and it may be worth while to investigate. The closest example I am aware of is Raymond Brown's suggestion (see "Birth of the Messiah") with additional work by some astronomers that the comet of 66 CE with the precession of Armenian magi to Nero in that year, who left by another route, was the force behind the story. This seems to be a reasonable suggestion and one that I have taken seriously. However, let me make a few critical remarks: For one, none of the ancient historians that mention the Armenian precession talk about the comet (Halley's to be exact) before hand. In fact, Suetonius talks about the comet several paragraphs after the magi had returned home. The connection was not made by the historians and the magi did not come to Nero because of a great birth or because of the comet. The event was totally political with the new Armenian king coming to Rome to thank Nero for giving him control of this region against advances by the Parthian Empire. Another point is that Nero was the greater gift-giver, spending exuberant amounts of money for months for the occasion instead of the new king bringing gifts to Nero, though he does worship him as he does the Sun (Mithras). Thirdly, I doubt Matthew would have wanted to connect the birth of the Christ to the figure considered to be the anti-Christ; 666 in Revelation is the addition of the values of the letters in Hebrew for Caesar Nero and there are other allusions to Rome and Nero as well.

Reply to RA and WH 3

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:54 PM PDT
Most importantly, the comet does not fit the description of Matthew in the least. It would certainly not move in the southerly direction or stop over a particular city or house. In fact, this is what makes me skeptical of any natural event being malformed by the author of Matthew because it is such a leap. Besides, the inspiration would probably be better accounted for by the literature at the time, be it a prophetic reading of Numbers 24 or remembering the guiding star in the Aeneid. Further, one must try to take account for the statements in one of the letters of Ignatius, a 2nd century bishop from Antioch. In his letter to the Ephesians (that is, if he is the author; it could be pseudonymous), chapter 19, he mentions a star coming into being, brighter than all others with the sun, moon and other stars dancing and singing about this one luminary. The best scholarship I have seen on this suggests that Ignatius did not use Matthew but part of a common source, known as "M." Certainly no natural object can be mistaken for what Ignatius describes, at least not without some power intoxicants. (For that idea, John Allegro's theory about the magic mushroom behind Christian origins is for you.) These sorts of things make it hard to believe that there was a natural phenomena that prompted the author and the large shift from natural object to a chorus of stars requires to much imagination that it would seem the stellar events were make no difference.

Reply to RA and WH 4

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:54 PM PDT
But if anything else, astrology was shunned by orthodox figures, be it Jewish rabbis in the Talmud or Christians such as Augustine. Since Matthew is considered the "most Jewish" of the gospels, and in Matthew 5 it says that no part of the law will be lessened by accepting Christianity, it seems same to say this author would not have been happy having his theology rest on astrology when the Old Testament is usually clear about its opposition. And even if the author did take astrology seriously for this one part of the story, we could never know what was of interest. The fact of the matter is ancient astrologers said pretty much everything under the sun; it would be nearly impossible to know what any particular person thought about some stellar event. As one scholar of astrology and Ptolemy said (Franz Boll in "Der Stern der Weisen", 1917), figuring out the star this way is like solving the equation x + y = A where only A is known. It would be a waste of time to solve it because the options are uncountable.

Reply to RA and WH 5

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:55 PM PDT
Now, for Will: It is true that SoB has been used to refer to the star. Its double meaning is very purposeful. For the location of the Magi, firstly, the text is clear that there were from the East since the genitive case is used with the preposition "apo." Now, it seems plausible to say the Magi were in most any part of the world when they was the star, though there could be some subtle meaning in the Greek that I am missing. But given that they were Easterners, it most probable place that they would be is "the East" because such persons were high class figures in the Parthian Empire. According to Strabo (1st century BCE), these Magi had control over who would be king in the empire. It makes one doubt they would have been lollygagging about in Roman or "barbarian" territories. As for the phrase "in the east," the Greek is "en te anatole," which has been more commonly translated in newer versions as "at its rising." This is sensible because "anatole" says were the stars rise--in the east.

Reply to RA and WH 6

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:56 PM PDT
I have heard about this sort of stellar alignment being the astrological precursor to Jesus. However, there are some serious weaknesses to this. For one, the number of Magi is not said. Tradition says three most likely because of the three gifts. However, I have also read about the tradition relating to 12 Magi. As for being a pointer, pointing to what? I think you may be referring to the Internet piece "Zeitgeist" which mentions the stars pointing to the place the sun rises at the winter solstice. Do note that the only place I have found that refers to the belt stars as kings is in South Africa, which did not have any contact with the Ancient Mediterranean world. Also, these stars don't point anywhere near the sun's location at winter solstice. For once, the constellation has set by that time and around 1 CE the solstice was not in any constellation which could be said to be pointed to by Sirius and Orion's belt (Taurus or Scorpio). I have found in these investigations one has to be very careful when it comes to sources.

Reply to RA and WH 7

Posted by Aaron Adair October 25, 2007 At 02:56 PM PDT
As for why planetaria produce the show, it does seem to be in part to ensure that tickets are sold, and since capitalism is the way of things, I say full steam ahead. However, those same institutions must ensure that their presentations are accurate. We would not find it acceptable for a planetarium to promote Young Earth Creationism because it does not stand against the evidence (like all of it!) and has only one purpose: to evangelize. I think my fellow planetarium co-workers should be weary of having the facility being used for the spread of the gospel instead of the spread of good science. Perhaps in a future post I will explain what I do and do not have issue with in the shows that I have seen. That's all for now. Do ask more questions if I have not been clear enough.



Sky Publishing, a New Track Media Company
Copyright © 2012 New Track Media. All rights reserved.
Sky & Telescope, Night Sky, and SkyandTelescope.com are registered trademarks of New Track Media