Star of wonder

[Gob]

It might seem churlish to dissect such an enduring image of Christmas as the star of Bethlehem, but a quiet astronomical debate has been bubbling away for decades. Could some real cosmic event have drawn "three wise men" on a journey to find a newborn king?


This debate requires one very big assumption - that the story of the star and the journey is true.

Prof David Hughes, an astronomer from the University of Sheffield, first published a review of the theories on the famous star in the 1970s.

Having spent many years studying the astronomical explanations and reviewing the associated biblical stories, he is now an expert on the subject.

But there are some intriguing historical parallels.

The three kings were religious scholars known as the Magi - revered Babylonian astronomers and astrologists. They studied the stars and planets, interpreting the meaning behind cosmic events.

Anything very unusual was considered an omen, so the star must have been both rare and visually spectacular. And, says Hughes, it would have had a very clear message for the Magi.

This leads the astronomer to conclude that the star of Bethlehem was probably not a star at all, and that it was more than one single event.

"If you read the Bible carefully," says Hughes, "the Magi saw something when they were in their own country - [probably Babylon] - so they travelled to Jerusalem and had a word with King Herod."

According to the story, the Magi told Herod of the sign they had seen and, says Hughes, "when they left Jerusalem [for] Bethlehem, they saw something again".

Hughes's best explanation for this series of events is something known as a triple conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn - with the two planets coming close together in the sky three times over a short period.

"[This happens when] you get an alignment between the Sun, the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn," says Hughes.

Tim O'Brien, associate director of Jodrell Bank Observatory in Cheshire, suggests this would have looked striking. "It's remarkable how much your attention is drawn when two very bright objects come together in the sky," he explains.

And once the planets lined up in their orbits, Earth would "overtake" the others, meaning that Jupiter and Saturn would appear to change direction in the night sky.

"At that time, people would have set great store by the motions of the planets," says O'Brien.

Even more significantly, the event is believed to have been in the constellation Pisces, which represents one of the signs of the zodiac.

"You would [only] get a triple conjunction like this about every 900 years," he says, so for astronomers in Babylon 2,000 years ago, it would have been a signal of something very significant.

"A triple conjunction of this kind ticks all the boxes."

The second favoured explanation is a very bright comet.

While certainly spectacular and ethereal in appearance, comets are essentially "big, dirty snowballs" flying through space.

"When they come close to the Sun, this ice melts - solar wind blows this material out into space, so you get a tail of matter coming off the comet," explains O'Brien.

This tail, which points away from the Sun, is one of the things that has made the comet idea popular, explains Hughes.

"Quite a few people have said that comets seem to 'stand over' the Earth, because of their coma and tail sometimes looking like an arrow," says Hughes.

The most timely record was of a bright comet appearing in the constellation of Capricorn in 5BC, which was recorded by astronomers in China.

A less likely, but more famous candidate was Halley's comet, which was visible around 12BC.

Those who favour this theory point out that the 5BC comet would have been in the southern sky as seen from Jerusalem, with the head of the comet close to the horizon and the tail is pointing vertically upward.

"Quite a lot of people liked the comet idea, so it crops up in quite a lot of Christmas cards," says Hughes.

"The snag is that they're not that rare. They were also commonly associated with the 'four Ds' - doom, death, disease and disaster," he suggests. "So if it did contain a message, it would have been a bad omen."

Another theory is that the star was light from the birth of a new star, or nova.

There are records - again from astronomers in the Far East - of a new star in the small, northern constellation of Aquila in 4BC.

Hughes says: "People who like this theory say this new star would have been [positioned] directly over Jerusalem."

Dr Robert Cockcroft, manager of the McCallion Planetarium at McMaster University in Ontario says a nova is "a good candidate" for the star of Bethlehem.

"It can 'appear' as a new star in a constellation, and fade again over the following months," he explains.

"It is also not too bright, explaining why we don't have any records of it in the west." Cockcroft suggests that this might also have given the three wise men something to follow.

While other "omens" would have been needed to cause the Magi to set out on their journey west to Jerusalem, he says , it would take them months to get there, "by which time Aquila [and the new star could have] risen in the sky to appear in the south.

"Bethlehem lies due south of Jerusalem, so that Magi could 'follow' the star to Bethlehem."

Other more improbable but entertaining theories have been proposed over the years, says Hughes.

One he describes as particularly far-fetched was suggested in a 1979 academic paper by the Greek astronomer George Banos. He proposed that the Christmas star was actually the planet Uranus.

Banos suggested that the Magi discovered the planet 1,800 years before the astronomer William Herschel formally recorded the discovery in 1781.

"His idea was that the Magi discovered Uranus, that this was the star of Bethlehem and they then tried to hush up the discovery," Hughes explains

[MajGenl.Meade]

But there are some intriguing historical parallels.

The three kings were religious scholars known as the Magi

And there's the first egregious error. "Three" comes from popular songs and Xmas cards. Matthew gives no number. Likewise "kings" is not in the Bible.

So the rest doesn't matter because the first basic claim is balderdash

(and he was one of Santa's reindeers I think)

[dgs49]

Having a bad day Meade? As you very well know, there is more than a thousand years do Christian tradition supporting the THREE magi, including their names. (I play tennis with a guy named Balthazar).

I went to a show at a local planetarium many years ago and they pinpointed the date of christ's birth based on a celestial phenomenon - I think it was a couple planets lining up with a star.

I understand il Papa wrote recently about the possible connection between a census in about 4BC and the birth of JC.

Harmless speculation, as far as I'm concerned.

[Lord Jim]

I think it was a couple planets lining up with a star.

That's the way I've understood it too, and not only that, about nine or ten years ago, the same configuration occurred; it was a pretty impressive sight; it really stood out in the night sky...

I remember thinking what a treat it was to be able to look up in the sky and see the same thing The Three Wise Guys saw....

[dales]

Meade is right.

There were numerous Maggi (Magicians) coming from what is now modern-day Iran.

This astronomical event drew hundreds if not thousands of people.

Even a few Mayans might have been there.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... or they Mayan't.

Tradition? What's that got to do with the price of cheese? What I very well know is that the Bible is the only source of information for what did or did not happen. The Bible does not number neither does it name the 'magi' who came from the East. Three is no more valid than two or twenty-two - probably it's better than twenty-two thousand.

The Roman church chose three because apparently one gift = one person so three gifts must equal three people (ignoring the possibility that twelve magi, as is the tradition of the Eastern church, could each have brought some gold, or some frankincense or some myrrh - indeed each could have brought two or three of those). Stupid Christians have carried on this numbering rubbish.

All claims that their names were Balthasar, Gaspar and Melchior are total bat-crap originating no earlier than AD 500 and perhaps as late as AD 800. The Syrian Christian naming them Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas is equally as valid as the Roman tradition and the Ethiopian which prefers Hor, Karsudan, and Basanater, and the Armenians call 'em Kagpha, Badadakharida and Badadilma. All false as to number and name.

Same with Dismas. Total fraudulent creation of the Roman church which I believe has the patent on that activity.

Merry Christmas
Meade

[dgs49]

Meade, although this is a core RC-Prod conflict, it is intellectually silly to suppose that all knowledge about God and things theological are contained in the books that are now in The Bible. Christian tradition is also valid. Nobody knows the names of the Magi who eventually made their way to the household of JMJ, but it is entirely reasonable to conclude, based on two thousand years of tradition, that there were three and only three.

[Rick]

Christian tradition is also valid. Nobody knows the names of the Magi who eventually made their way to the household of JMJ, but it is entirely reasonable to conclude, based on two thousand years of tradition, that there were three and only three.

Mark 7:7 from the ASV since nobody seems to like the KJV

But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As you very well know, there is more than a thousand years do Christian tradition supporting the THREE magi, including their names

Meade, although this is a core RC-Prod conflict, it is intellectually silly to suppose that all knowledge about God and things theological are contained in the books that are now in The Bible. Christian tradition is also valid. Nobody knows the names of the Magi who eventually made their way to the household of JMJ, but it is entirely reasonable to conclude, based on two thousand years of tradition, that there were three and only three.

More batpoo. You started with 1000 years of "Christian tradition" which you claim is spot-on as to both names and numbers.

You've now moved to 2000 years of "Christian tradition" (starting when Jesus was 14 years old or something; before there ever were any Christians?) which according to you is now wrong on the names but still right on the number.

So it's "intellectually silly" to believe the Word of God and yet intellectually sensible to believe something that was made up by men centuries after the event - just like other rubbish such as The Immaculate Conception, Mariolatry, Infallibility of Whoever The Cardinals Vote For, Peter being the First Pope, the Miraculous Efficacy of Christ's Foreskin and other Miscellaneous Bits of Bone and Skin, and so on (ad nauseum)? Given the record, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that Roman church tradition is self-serving power mania.

But you know, I could be wrong there

Meade

[GrossDad]

"God Rest Ye, Unitarians"
Lyrics by the Rev. Christopher Gist Raible of the First Unitarian Church of Worcester

God rest ye, Unitarians, let nothing you dismay;
Remember there's no evidence there was a Christmas Day;
When Christ was born is just not known, no matter what they say,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact.

There was no star of Bethlehem, there was no angels' song;
There could have been no wise men for the trip would take too long.
The stories in the Bible are historically wrong,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact!

Our current Christmas customs come from Persia and from Greece,
From solstice celebrations of the ancient Middle East.
We know our so-called holiday is just a pagan feast,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact.

[Lord Jim]

GD, I'd suggest that they not try going caroling door-to-door with that one....

twenty-two thousand.

I hope not...

That would make for an awfully crowded creche....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah but they were not at any creche (or manger or stable) but at "the house" some time after Jesus was born - he's described as child, not a baby. All that creche stuff is just nonsense made up by pre-reformation Christmas Card companies as well.

[Lord Jim]

Well Meade, I know folks from various Protestant denominations that have creches under their trees as well...

[Lord Jim]

Ah but they were not at any creche (or manger or stable)

Well....

Luke 2:12


New International Version (©1984)
This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

New Living Translation (©2007)
And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger."

English Standard Version (©2001)
And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
This will be the sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in cloth and lying in a feeding trough."

International Standard Version (©2012)
And this will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a feeding trough."

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“And this is a sign for you: You will find The Baby wrapped in swaddling bands and lying in a manger.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is how you will recognize him: You will find an infant wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger."

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And this shall be a sign unto you; You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

American King James Version
And this shall be a sign to you; You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

American Standard Version
And this is the sign unto you: Ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.

Darby Bible Translation
And this is the sign to you: ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes, and lying in a manger.

English Revised Version
And this is the sign unto you; Ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger.

Webster's Bible Translation
And this shall be a sign to you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes, lying in a manger.

Weymouth New Testament
And this is the token for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger."

World English Bible
This is the sign to you: you will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth, lying in a feeding trough."

Young's Literal Translation
and this is to you the sign: Ye shall find a babe wrapped up, lying in the manger.'

http://bible.cc/luke/2-12.htm

[GrossDad]

Pssst . . . Lord Jim: MajGenl.Meade isn't saying that there was no manger, only that the Bible doesn't report the wise men having arrived while Jesus was an infant; thus, creches that show them at the manger do not accurately reflect the Bible. See, for example, Snopes.com on the the "three wise men".

[Rick]

LJ I think you and Meade are discussing 2 different things.

The Angel told the Shepherds about the manger. The Maji 1st went to see Herod, Herod was the one that instructed the Maji to search out Jesus.

Once they found him they went out a different direction, Joseph was then instructed to escape to Egypt.

Jesus was a toddler at the very least, Herod executed those that were upwards of 2.

Excuse me: could have been as old as 2 according to who you read it could have been as soon as 40 days after his birth. At any rate his family had relocated to a house by this time even though they were still in Bethlehem.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Jupiter and Saturn ore two celestial bodies present in the winter sky and they both track from east to west. Don't know of a third that might join them but I am not in the area where Christ was born.

I did take the telescope out last week (on the one clear night we have had lately) and did some Jupiter watching. Of course the wife said it was too cold to come take a look. And I even had a fire going in the patio fireplace.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah but they were not at any creche (or manger or stable)

Well.... etc etc

That was a lot of work LJ! Unfortunately the angels you quote in Luke 2 were speaking to shepherds - not wise men. Grossdad has it right.

Matthew 2 is the only place the wise men appear:

9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh

There we have it - a house (not a manger), a child (not a baby) and they presented him with gifts. I don't think that we can present gifts to a baby of a few days old; mum would be presented with 'em. He must have been somewhat older in order to go "oooh" and "aaaaah" and say "fank oo". Granted that's arguable on a language basis, but Herod had good reason to kill children under two years old - neither he nor the Magi were certain how old Jesus was at that time. He played safe.

Yes of course you are right - many protestants have creches up in the house, the church, all over the place. I try to eliminate the wise men whenever possible but those Hallmark moments seem impossible to eradicate. Every bloody pageant I've seen has those Magi storming around hesitantly - why can't we just have three extra sheep? They don't know what they are doing either but at least they have the excuse - we're sheep.

Meade

[Gob]

More jousting over fairy tales....

[oldr_n_wsr]

Were they fairy tales or just some natural phenomenon? While one may disagree that Jesus was the son of God, one cannot disagree with natural convergences especially if the math proves that certain things lined up at certain times in the past (or as they line up now).

And I thought that Jesus was born sometime later in the year (March?) rather than in the beginning of winter. So how did the stars/planets align at that time of year?