What was the Star of Bethlehem?

[Eroica]

This probably comes up every Christmas, but a search of the board turned up nothing.

I voted for option one. Matthew's gospel is full of "events" in which Christ's Messianic identity is supposedly confirmed by the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, and I believe that the story of the Magi is such a story - ie historically untrue.

The relevant passages of the Old testament are:

• Numbers 24:17 - A star has come forth from Jacob, a comet has risen from Israel.
• Isaiah 60:6 - A flood of camels shall cover you ... all those of Sheba shall come; gold and frankincense shall they bring.
• Psalms 71:10-11 - The kings of Sheba and Seba bear gifts ... may all kings do him homage, all nations serve him.

[Jigsaw]

I think we need to establish a parameter here: this is not a thread to discuss *whether* there was ever a real "star of Bethlehem", as discussions of "religion" are specifically prohibited from BABBling. We need to take it as the basic operating assumption of this discussion that there was a star, and if so, what would it have been.

Anyway, assuming that there was a Star of Bethlehem, the most likely candidate would have been a nova, and thus I voted for "Other". The biggest drawback is that we don't know exactly what year Jesus was born, so it's hard to calculate which nova it would have been.

It couldn't have been a planetary conjunction because the Magi would have been perfectly familiar with those. They didn't say, "We have seen a planetary conjunction", they said, "We have seen a star." I pay them the compliment of assuming that they knew their onions, and knowing the difference between a "star" and a "planetary conjunction" would be pretty basic for a professional astrologer. They were expert observers of the heavens, professional astrologers, back when astrology was a respected and serious profession, not a woowoo hobby. for pampered housewives.

And of course there's Arthur C. Clarke's story "The Star" in The Nine Billion Names of God, in which a supernova is the Star. Great classic story. Sad, but good.

Same thing for its having been Venus. Venus was around all the time, it rose, it set, everybody knew what it was. It wouldn't have attracted any attention.

[heliopause]

Hello? Isn't it obvious??? It was PX!!!! :roll:

Duh!

[SciFi Chick]

I think we need to establish a parameter here: this is not a thread to discuss *whether* there was ever a real "star of Bethlehem", as discussions of "religion" are specifically prohibited from BABBling. We need to take it as the basic operating assumption of this discussion that there was a star, and if so, what would it have been.

I don't see how deciding the star existed is the alternative to "discussing" religion. As long as we don't argue with people who don't believe it existed or with people who do, then it's not a religious discussion.

That said, it didn't exist. It couldn't have been a nova. Why? Because it wouldn't have led the wise men to a specific spot. It would be like looking at the moon which is never over a specific house or stable so to speak.

If it did exist, maybe it was a UFO. :wink:

[SciFi Chick]

Okay, my post makes the sense that doesn't. ops:

What I mean by not arguing is that if you believe it existed in a faith way, no problem, but it couldn't have existed in a scientific way as a nova.

[edited to correct spelling - sheesh]

[mike alexander]

My own vote is post-hoc myth-fulfillment. The Christian Gospels go to great lengths to show the Messianic veracity of Jesus, in a manner that has the hallmarks of very early urban legend.That said, I don't think the idea of a predictable event is dismissable.

Small diversion: I'm currently reading a history of the Spanish Armada, and it turns out that many people were very concerned that the year 1588 was going to be a time of troubles based on predictions made a generation before by Regiomontanus (a planetary conjunction, two lunar eclipses in one year, numerology, other things). Given that there was great unrest (heck, war) in France and the Netherlands, England was in a state of precarious alliances and financially strained and Philip of Spain was coming around to launching a grab to return the English from Protestant heresy, the contingent facts of history suplied a plausible correlation to astrological/nomical incidents.

The period of the Gospels was a similar time of unrest and worry in Judea and the entire Middle East. There were many splinter groups and the 'end of times' and similar messianic longings were very evident. I would not find it hard to believe that arbitrary astronomical events, even if totally predictable, could be used as a pretext to read in a particular meaning.

[SouthofHeaven]

Ok we know Jesus was boring in teh lambing season becuase A. it say this in teh bible accounts and B that is when census was taken during the Roman rule. So any planetary alignment or planet in teh night sky would have to be determined in a time frame of say March through April between 7 BCE and 4 CE. You would have to figure on the night sky form those dates and year.

As for teh Nova or supernova explanation I woudl have to say I disagree. Even at that time ancient civs were rather attune with teh sky and if something new appeared more than likely it would have been recorded somewhere else. And we would be able to see remanents of it today (ie Crab Nebula.

NOw if it wasn't recorded and it possible was a super nova or nova then you can run star charts for that range of date against current charts and see what star is missing and if that missing start corresponds to a nebula or other nova or supernova remanent.

Now lets take a look at the civilization in that time in that area of the world. More than likely the three kings were traders or nomads. So they might have mistaken Jupiter or Saturn as a star. They possibly did not know about planets. So it could have been Jupiter.

That's my two cents

[daver]

We need to take it as the basic operating assumption of this discussion that there was a star, and if so, what would it have been.

Hmm, my take on it is just the opposite; if Matthew is to be strictly and literally interpreted, it had to be a miracle. The only way there can be a debate is if you allow some amount of misinterpretation.

Anyway, assuming that there was a Star of Bethlehem, the most likely candidate would have been a nova, and thus I voted for "Other". The biggest drawback is that we don't know exactly what year Jesus was born, so it's hard to calculate which nova it would have been.

It couldn't have been a planetary conjunction because the Magi would have been perfectly familiar with those. They didn't say, "We have seen a planetary conjunction", they said, "We have seen a star."

Magi: We have seen a conjunction between Jupiter (the king of the planets) and Saturn in the constellation Pisces (associated with Judea).

[I'm making this up; i have no idea which conjunction had been suggested]

Ignorant Shepherds: What's a cojunxion?

The nice thing about an astrological interpretation is that whatever phenomenon it was doesn't have to physically manifest itself over Bethlehem. Otherwise you're back to miracles (or maybe weather balloons).

Same thing for its having been Venus. Venus was around all the time, it rose, it set, everybody knew what it was. It wouldn't have attracted any attention.

Again, it would have to be in an astrological context.

[Jigsaw]

Sorry, have to disagree with this:

They possibly did not know about planets.

The whole backbone of astrology IS the way the planets move through the collection of constellations across the ecliptic called the "Zodiac". All historic sources agree that what we have today by way of astrology was codified by the Babylonians and handed down essentially intact. So the Magi were working within a long-standing traditional discipline that included awareness of the planets.

There are five naked-eye planets; you don't need a telescope to see them.

http://skymaps.com/articles/n0003.html

The word "planet" is from the Greek for "wanderer".
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

...modification of Greek planEt-, planEs, literally, wanderer, from planasthai to wander

1 a : any of the seven celestial bodies sun, moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn that in ancient belief have motions of their own among the fixed stars

The ancients knew perfectly well that some "stars" moved around quite a bit, and the ancient Greeks (300 years before the Magi) called them "planasthai" or "wanderers".

Also have to disagree with this:

More than likely the three kings were traders or nomads.

The Greek word used in Matthew 2 is "magoi", which quite specifically means "magi" or "magicians". They were the educated elite, members of a priestly caste of learned men who knew all about astrology.

Not nomads or traders. And, even nomads or traders would have been familiar with the night sky.

[skyglow1]

I voted other as I've seen a documentory about this before on TV. It said it was either the planetary conjunction or it was a comet. I suppose a comet is more applicable as the comet's tail would make the "star" seem to be moving, "guiding" those people.

skyglow1

[Lycus]

I suppose a comet is more applicable as the comet's tail would make the "star" seem to be moving, "guiding" those people.

Do we know of any good candidates that were visible during that time period?

[Charlie in Dayton]

As I vaguely recall, it was something in the sky that rose in the east, that pointed them in that particular direction, not necessarily some sort of cosmic neon arrow pointing ata certain house.

And for the record, SouthOfHeaven, that l337 'teh' crap sucks swamp water...okay? Thanks. [-X

[captain swoop]

It's a pub, well, I know of 2, there is one in Lambeth and one in Norwich. Probably loads of others.

[Eroica]

Ok we know Jesus was boring in teh lambing season becuase A. it say this in teh bible accounts and B that is when census was taken during the Roman rule.

You're mixing up two different accounts. The Magi and the Star of Bethlehem are in Matthew. The census, stable, lambs etc are in Luke.

[pteranodon]

I voted for "something else". But I prefer to not specify it because very few people here would believe it anyway or even consider me a woo-woo. :wink:

[Mr. X]

I believe they omitted the word "rock" before star.

So it's the Rock star of Bethleem.

They followed the rock star to the party (or "gig").

[Avatar28]

I voted for "something else". But I prefer to not specify it because very few people here would believe it anyway or even consider me a woo-woo. :wink:

I'll bite. What was it. I may or may not believe it, but I won't consider you a woo woo. Woowoos are those that refuse to believe science or reason. Things like insisting planet x is doing y (and thus violating all the known laws of physics) are woowoos.

[Lycus]

Unless you think the Star of Bethlehem was Planet X.

(Just kidding. :wink: )

[SouthofHeaven]

Ok we know Jesus was boring in teh lambing season becuase A. it say this in teh bible accounts and B that is when census was taken during the Roman rule.

You're mixing up two different accounts. The Magi and the Star of Bethlehem are in Matthew. The census, stable, lambs etc are in Luke.

The main gist of the story is that a star guides the magi to bethlehem to see the son of god. THe reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem was for the census or was I taught wrong in sunday school. Anyway my conjecture is that looking for a planet conjuction or comet or any star formation supernova or other celestial event that happened in December woudl not give you the real "Star" becasue jesus was more than likely not born in December. BUt you would have to look to a time frame of March through April when most census taking was done during the Roman rule.

[SouthofHeaven]

As I vaguely recall, it was something in the sky that rose in the east, that pointed them in that particular direction, not necessarily some sort of cosmic neon arrow pointing ata certain house.

And for the record, SouthOfHeaven, that l337 'teh' crap sucks swamp water...okay? Thanks. [-X

Forgive my typos, it happens some times. geez

[SouthofHeaven]

Sorry, have to disagree with this:

They possibly did not know about planets.

The whole backbone of astrology IS the way the planets move through the collection of constellations across the ecliptic called the "Zodiac". All historic sources agree that what we have today by way of astrology was codified by the Babylonians and handed down essentially intact. So the Magi were working within a long-standing traditional discipline that included awareness of the planets.

So then we can rule out a planet. So it could possibly be a supernova or a nova. So it goes back to what I stated that we can calculate positions or stars in a specific time frame of say March through April from 7 BCE to 3CE and compare them to current star charts and see what is missing or now is a nebula or nova remanent.

[daver]

BUt you would have to look to a time frame of March through April when most census taking was done during the Roman rule.

Well, we know that the census wasn't your typical census, because your typical census would be concerned with where people are currently living, not where they were born. So this particular census could presumably have been taken during an unusual time of the year as well.

[Eroica]

The main gist of the story is that a star guides the magi to bethlehem to see the son of god. THe reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem was for the census or was I taught wrong in sunday school.

Yes, you were taught wrong. In Matthew, Jesus is born in a house in Bethlehem, presumably because that is where Matthew thought Joseph lived. He knows nothing about a census.

I don't want to get entangled in religious - as opposed to astronomical - issues, but the whole census story is ludicrous. The Romans carried out censuses for taxation purposes. If Joseph lived and worked in Nazareth (as Luke asserts), then that is where he would be registered. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if everyone had to find out where their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was born and go there to be registered! :-?

As for the nova or supernova hypothesis, the Chinese usually noticed these things. Did they record any around that time?

[Archer17]

...As for the nova or supernova hypothesis, the Chinese usually noticed these things. Did they record any around that time?

According to an article at csicop dealing with this topic there was a supernova around that time:

..Still another contender for the Star is a supernoval explosion that occurred in the spring of 5 B.C. in the constellation of Capricorn. You'll find this argued by British astronomer David H. Clark and two associates in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society (December 1977)..

[kilopi]

This probably comes up every Christmas, but a search of the board turned up nothing.

Maybe you should have searched for "Bethlehem" and "star".

There are five naked-eye planets; you don't need a telescope to see them.

Actually, there are seven.

The Greek word used in Matthew 2 is "magoi", which quite specifically means "magi" or "magicians". They were the educated elite, members of a priestly caste of learned men who knew all about astrology.

Yep.

So, imagine three astrologers sitting around two thousand years ago. They have their star charts and they are familiar with them. They have a lot of experience at astronomy, it's their job, and they've been doing it for many years.

They're discussing the latest developments:

Alendo: Mars was very bright two years ago, I don't remember it getting so bright. I bet it will be even brighter this year.

Balshar: Yes! and look, it's retrograding in Pisces, that is the sign of the King.

Corminse: Got my maps. This will be easy to trace, there's hardly any stars in that part of the sky.

Alendo: Hey, Corminse, you missed one.

Corminse: No way. What, you're right! Maybe I missed it last year when I rechecked my maps, the skies are dark and clear this year. That makes 3211 stars in the sky--there goes your descending digits theory, Balshar.

Balshar: It was a simple theory, not important. Do you notice how Mars is circling that one, as it retrogrades and then progrades? Maybe it is a sign.

Alendo: I was the one who discovered it. It has to be important. It's in Pisces, after all.

Corminse: It can't be that important, it's not bright at all. I can barely see it.

Alendo: O, it's important all right, look it has moved!

Balshar: What! Only the planets move, and it is not bright enough to be a planet.

Corminse: Alendo is right, each night it has moved toward the west.

Alendo: It is a sign! The King was to arise in the west, we must journey!

***

Balshar: Your star has continued to move west. How far do we travel? We've been traveling for weeks.

Corminse: Let us stop here and consult with the King.

Alendo: Go ahead, I'm reworking the charts. I believe that the star has stopped moving. We must be close. It is due south of us in the early evening.

Balshar: Tell the King what we're doing, and let's head south then. What's south of here? Bethlehem?

***

Corminse: Alendo, your wonderous star is no longer on the charts in Pisces.

Alendo: I told you! It was a a sign from Heaven, to guide us. That little boy will grow up to do great things.

Balshar: His mother certainly agreed. Anyway, we're back to 3210 stars, so maybe my theory does have merit.

***

What was the "star"? Uranus, not to be found again for centuries.

[The Bad Astronomer]

The star is mentioned by Matthew, but not Luke, yet they describe the same time period in their gospels. This is a pretty clear indication to me that the star was a fable. Signs in the heavens were a big deal, and it seems extremely unlikely to me that Luke wouldn't have mentioned it.

Besides the supernova theory (which I was unaware of, and will look into) there really are no strong candidates of real events in the sky. These people were very used to seeing stars and such in the sky, and IMO would have recognized a planetary conjunction for what it was. A nova is possible, but again, why didn't Luke mention it?

[Archer17]

I agree BA, I think it's a myth myself. SciFi Chick comes up with an excellent point to ponder for those that think this could be an astronomical event (whether there was a nova or not):

..That said, it didn't exist. It couldn't have been a nova. Why? Because it wouldn't have led the wise men to a specific spot. It would be like looking at the moon which is never over a specific house or stable so to speak...

I agree with this young lady. There's no celestial event that hovers over a specific location. It's that simple. SciFi Chick - you get a gold star for logical thinking in my book ..

[Jpax2003]

Hard telling why the gospels vary on this issue. Perhaps the authors had different objectives or agendas in each one. Maybe someon added it later. Were the Jews big on astrology/astronomy in ancient times? Would it have seemed a pagan thing to do? besides, this happened at his birth, 33 years before the crucifixion, who'd remember it if they weren't there or heard someone mention it?

As for the date, some suspect that John hinted at it in verse 1:14 where he says "The word bacame flesh and dwelt among us" "dwelt" was tanslated from the greek "tabernacled", which is never used this way anywhere else in the bible. This may be a hint that Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles on 15 Tishri (September/October). This feast required men to journey to the Temple... "What a good time for a census" thought some efficiency-minded roman.

We don't know the magi's level of knowledge of jewish customs, but all the commotion probably attracted their attention. It could have been a confluence of astrology, astronomy, or atmospheric phenomena. Perhaps it was a conjunction, or a supernova, or a comet, or an aurora (the chinese might be in daylight and miss it), or St. Elmo's Fire even. Perhaps there were thunderstorms to the south of Bethlehem. Is it possible it could have been a meteor/meteorite or several?

Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence.

[Archer17]

... Perhaps it was a conjunction, or a supernova, or a comet, or an aurora (the chinese might be in daylight and miss it), or St. Elmo's Fire even. Perhaps there were thunderstorms to the south of Bethlehem. Is it possible it could have been a meteor/meteorite or several?

Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence.

How can any of the above phenomena zero-in on Bethlehem? That's the problem I have with "natural" explanations. Whether one wants to believe such an event was "supernatural" is a matter of religious faith and something I won't touch, but as far as natural phenomena go: auroras, conjunctions (dates don't mesh and how can planets lead someone to Bethlehem?), St Elmo's fire, meteors (which last seconds), comets, supernovas don't cut it ..read SciFi Chick's post, she figured out the flaw in that kind of thinking Jpax

[Eroica]

Pisces is regarded as the zodiacal sign where evidence of the messiah will appear.

This is taken from the page kilopi links to. The triple-conjunction-of-Jupiter-and-Saturn-in-Pisces theory makes a similar claim about ancient astrologers associating Pisces with the Jews. What evidence is there that this was the case?