When I was younger I was something of a grinch. As I’ve grown older I’ve relaxed considerably about Christmas, and now I enjoy this time of year with my family quite a bit.
But still, sometimes my heart is maybe a size too small. I’ve been pondering writing my thoughts about the legend of the Star of Bethlehem for many years, and Christmas is as good a time as any; maybe even the best time! After all, ’tis the season for planetaria across the country to show their annual Star Of Bethlehem show, where they strive mightily to explain what astronomical phenomenon could have been behind the Biblical tale.
I have some bad news for them.
It is my personal opinion, based on looking through the evidence, that the Star did not exist. It is a simple story, a fictional account that too many people take way too seriously. Why?
Let’s see.
First, the story:
1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
[…]
9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
Right away, I have to wonder: if the wise men came from the east to Jerusalem, and they saw the star in the east, then following it they would have traveled away from Jerusalem, not toward it! They started east of the city, and headed east. So am I missing something here?
This right away makes me think something is perhaps amiss in this story.
Forgetting for the moment that this story is already somewhat inaccurate, what do we make of the idea of a notable star in the sky? The quotation above is from the King James version of the Bible, translated from Greek, and is similar to other versions of the book. The word in the Greek version is aster, which means literally "star", but could be fairly construed as some sort of astronomical event other than a simple star. It wouldn’t make any sense for the wise men to have followed just any old star, so we have to assume that this apparition was something unusual, and also rather bright. A really faint object wouldn’t have aroused much in the way of religious fervor and the desire to trek hundreds of miles across the desert; plus it is generally depicted as being very bright.
What could it have been?
The obvious thing to do is to think of bright astronomical phenomena such as a planetary conjunction (when two or more planets pass very near each other in the sky), a comet, and a nova or supernova.
Events like these have been exhaustively searched for. You can find many places online with descriptions, like Nick Strobel’s Astronomy Notes, for example. A Google search will yield dozens and dozens of potential phenomena. I think many are very unlikely to be right on their merits (a comet wouldn’t be mistaken for a star, a supernova would have most likely have been too bright, and so on).
But it doesn’t matter. The legend is almost certainly impossible. Why?
It has to do with the east again. Almost all stars rise and set over the course of the night, which is a reflection of the spin of the Earth. When viewed from above the north pole, the Earth spins counterclockwise, which means stars rise in the east, make an arc which peaks in the south, and then set in the west. The only stars which don’t do this are ones in the north, near Polaris. They make circles around the north pole of the sky, never rising nor setting (though they do get higher and lower in the sky as they circle).
So if the wise men saw a star "in the east", we see immediately there are problems. Was it in the east at sunset? If so, it would rise until about midnight, whereupon it would be toward the south, and then by sunrise it would be in the west. Following it would make them go in circles. Because of the Earth’s rotation, a star cannot stay in the eastern part of the sky. If it’s in the east at sunrise that’s both better and worse; better because the star may still be in the east when the Sun rises, so they only see it toward the east, but worse because then how can they then follow it?
It’s not an option for the star to be only in the east all night long. The rotating Earth prevents that. And if it’s far enough north it can stay in the north, but that’s not what the Bible says. It’s very specific about it being in the east; Matthew states that not just once but twice.
There are only two options: if it stayed in the east then it either orbited the Earth at a nearly or exactly geosynchronous rate (taking 24 hours to go around once, so it appeared to hang in one spot in the sky like a TV satellite), or it was a miracle and just hung there. The first is physically impossible, and the second… well, if you assume it was a miracle, why look for a supportive scientific explanation at all?
Speaking of support, there is another important point: Arabs and Chinese were phenomenal astronomers, and rarely missed any spectacular events (barring records being missing from key times). Note that most bright stars in the sky have Arabic names, a testament to the prowess of Arabic astronomers. It is unlikely in the extreme for them to have missed something like the Star of Bethlehem, and to my knowledge they didn’t record anything for that time period that fits the story, miracle or no. Update: It has been pointed out to me by various commenters below that Arabs did not start significantly contributing to astronomy until much later. So while we owe quite a bit to them sky-wise, you can ignore what I said about them here.
I think, in the end, there is a far simpler explanation: the star is a legend, a story, a tale told by people long after the actual event, getting bigger and more garnished with time. That does happen sometimes, you know. I am no fan of Biblical literalism, as searching my Religion category will show. There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples where the Bible cannot be literally true, so why can’t the Star of Bethlehem be yet another example?
If you are a religious sort, then there is little need to look for scientific explanations of miraculous events. By definition, a miracle is something that defies the laws of physics (and you can just guess how I feel about that). And if you are a scientist (and/or a planetarium show writer), you’re welcome to look for some physical representation of the Star, but bear in mind that your starting premise must perforce be flawed: if the story is literally true, there cannot be a scientific explanation, and if it’s a story that’s been embellished, you have too many free parameters to choose from. Which part of the myth do you ignore? How it hung in only one part of the sky, in the east? How bright it was? When it occurred?
The fact that no one has found a definitive explanation of the Star supports my idea that it’s a fictional tale. If it were as bright and obvious and critical as Matthew made it out to be, then we’d know what it was for sure by now.
If you’re a Christian, then it’s a nice story, and if you’re not, you can take it or leave it on its merits. I don’t think it takes anything away from the meaning of the holiday, whatever it may mean to you.
As for me, I’ll be happy looking at real stars, and opening my real presents on Christmas morning.
Happy holidays!
December 25th, 2007 at 3:06 am
As far as the problem of seeing the star in the East goes, consider this reading of the verses:
1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star WHEN WE WERE in the east, and are come to worship him.
[…]
9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw WHEN THEY WERE in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
However, that point aside, I agree with your main idea that there is no known phenomenon that could match this account. It’s either a miracle or a myth. I vote for myth, myself. It seems to me like one of those things in the Jesus story that was added to match some prophesy (e.g. his line of descent from King David), or to lend the tale some gravitas. Of course, if wise Persians came and worshipped, he must have been God Jr.!
December 25th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Just wondering, could the Bible have errata in it?
Could in translation error, the Magi came from the west?
This does not explain the geosyc. of the star.
Just wondering.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Boy, I’m glad you said that (and not me). This pretty much echoes my thoughts on the subject. Of course my wife is constantly berating me for “taking all of the wonderment out of things” when I do such an analysis. Your “if the wise men came from the east to Jerusalem, and they saw the star in the east, then following it they would have traveled away from Jerusalem, not toward it!” is exactly the sort of thing I say all the time that gets her riled up (although that’s not my intention).
It’s right up there with “axial tilt is the reason for the season” that I coined about 10 years ago, but have since seen in other places. I still don’t have the guts to put that on an actual lighted display on my roof.
- Jack
December 25th, 2007 at 3:18 am
Certainly the Arabs were fantastic astronomers, but wasn’t that much (like 1000 years or so) later? At around 0 BCE, I don’t think that much, if anything, existed in the way of Arabic culture, which reached its peak about 800-1000 years ago. The Chinese, on the other hand, would likely have noticed.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:19 am
I can think of two explanations:
1. God placed a highly reflective satellite of some kind in geosynchronous orbit directly over the Manger. (Caveat: Even so, this wouldn’t remain in “the East” for long. One would assume that as the three Kings got closer it would gradually move overhead.)
2. The frankincense was actually crack.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Most planetarium folk I know, refer to it as that SOB program, pun intended. At Hyde, a public observatory, we run Horkheimer’s ancient video on the subject only because we get flack when we don’t. When we do run it, those same folk who complained we don’t run it enough, never show up for it!
Those I know in this field agree with you but just don’t say so out loud. Gotta keep the customers coming in. Hyde is free (donations appreciated) but we still run it and cringe.
Rick
December 25th, 2007 at 3:28 am
BTW, while we’re debunking, that sure does look like a fake Santa hat you’re wearing. The contrast and texture are a little too crisp, and it doesn’t appear to be conforming to the shape of your head, although I admit the possibility that you may have gone “gangsta” and purchased an oversized hat for the occasion. The big tip-off, however, is that you appear to be otherwise occupying the exact same moment in spacetime whereupon you took your original blog profile picture.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:41 am
For what it’s worth, the magi were wise men, astrologers, not astronomers, that would have studied the heavens for astrological signs, not astronomical signs. A planet, moving from one astrological sign to another would have had some meaning for them, but not to the average person living at the time. Is it possible that that’s what all the fuss is about? The Discovery Channel did a show on this last Christmas, and that’s the theory they were putting out there anyway. As a person that has both studied, and taught the Bible at one time, I am in full agreement that it should not be taken literally, nor should it be considered infallible. It is a collection of books, written over a span of centuries by different authors, each with their own perspectives and biases on matters of faith. As far as the Christmas story being true? It’s a nice story. It makes us all feel “warm and fuzzy” inside. I mean the idea of angels, shepherds, all coming to see a cute little baby born in a manger is nice. The idea of peace and goodwill to our fellow man is something I think even the most hardened skeptic could get excited about. It’s too bad, that in traditional Biblical fashion, the story changes quickly from the babe in the manger, to the “Slaughter of the Innocents”, as Herod tries to track down this future “King of the Jews”.
Well, this will be the first time in 24 years that I have not stepped into a church, since my break with Evangelical Christianity a year ago. I’m looking forward to spending it with my young daughter as she is coming from Seattle. However you celebrate, religious or secular, have a Merry Christmas, and celebrate safely!
December 25th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Phil.
Phil, Phil, Phil.
Buddy, you skipped right past the simplest possible explanation and understanding of the story, and one that would pass muster with the post-Fides et Ratio Catholic Church no less.
The magic word (so to speak) is “astrologer”. And the three wise men are generally accepted to have been astrologers. Now you and I can agree that astrology is a bunch of hokum, but they didn’t think so. So these guys see some event to their east and say “hey, something’s going down!” Then they look up in various of their sources of lore and head off towards the west, but ultimately following the guidance of their legends, kicked off by the “star”.
They get near Bethlehem and there’s a fuss going on. As we both know from studying cold reads, these guys stop and say, “hey! this is the thing we’re looking for!” At this point if you’re a believer you can say that the whole thing was orchestrated by the FSM to bring them to that point, but whatever.
Since then, what with bad translations and five hundred years now of people being encouraged to come to their own personal understanding of the (badly-translated) scriptures we get the current folk tale of literally following a literal star.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:46 am
i believe christmas was better and more of a pure holiday when it wasnt so commercialized.
first off…the holiday was supposed to signify the birth of jesus…NOT TO SPEND MONEY ON GIFTS!
jesus’ birth was actually in the SPRING, not in december, read it for yourself.
christmas is a time for families to come together, to enjoy each others companionship, family and friends, loving each other.
here is a question for you…
if the story of the bethlehem star is in the bible, and you are alive today, what gives you the right to judge and why would you even want to?, ruin the thoughts and dreams of people who do actually
find something pure for once in thier lives to believe in??
who are you to discearn what is right to believe that something as
small or as insignifigant as a star even merely exists?
it doesnt really matter what you believe in anyway, just that you
believe.
its hard enough to find anything at all to truely believe in nowdays
anyway…dont you have enough to worry about down here on
the planet, or do you just like to nit pick on Gods creation?
December 25th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Were the Wise Men’s camels equipped with GPS devices, like a Magellan? Well, obviously it wouldn’t have actually been called a Magellan, since Magellan wouldn’t have been born for another 1500 years, but hopefully you get my point.
Anyway, if archeologists could get their hands on one of those units, perhaps they could retrace the Wise Men’s precise route. Of course, after all this time, it would likely need new batteries….
December 25th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Given multiple retranslations, the interpretation “we in the east have seen his star” seems at least plausible. I can imagine a very bright object appearing in the west and setting shortly after sunset, which someone might believe was leading him westward. I personally don’t mind hearing the occasional speculation about astronomical phenomena that might have inspired this legend. However, I think BA’s point about the impermanence and exaggeration of mythical and religious stories is an important one, so agree that astronomers should avoid placing too much emphasis on identifying the definitive Star of Bethlehem. We should also not forget that the modern Christmas tradition incorporates many aspects of the pagan traditions that preceded it, and that the star plays a heavily symbolic role in this story (light in the darkness; return of the sun after the solstice; godhood). Appreciating it on that level seems more appropriate (and ultimately more meaningful) than trying to explain it astronomically.
Happy solstice, everyone!
December 25th, 2007 at 4:23 am
I always figured that whoever wrote the verses was an astrology nut and that they ascribed mystical knowledge to the three fictional characters.
December 25th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Oops, sorry BA, I accidentally spammed you by not clearing my browser! I believe the magi were astrologers, not astronomers, and would have been looking for astrological signs. Is it possible that they saw some astrological significance in the heavens?
As far as it being a miracle, I guess if one operates on the premise that God exists, that he created the physical universe and that universe operates according to unbreakable laws of physics that he enacted, then I suppose he could break them. That would be my definition of a miracle. But why would he do that? I adhered to a charismatic form of Christianity for most of the past 24 years. I believed that God still performed miracles today. Yet in 24 years, I did not see God perform 1 miracle. People made all kinds of claims, cold healed, hurt back healed… all the invisible stuff. No one climbing out of wheelchairs, though. My point? Given the lack of “Miracle Activity” over the intervening 2,000 years since this star supposedly lit up the skies over Bethlehem, why would I believe this too be a miracle?
The sentiment, “Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men” is a good sentiment. It’s too bad that the biblical narrative so quickly changes from this to Herod’s “Slaughter of the Innocents”, the brutal campaign to slaughter every boy under the age of 2 in order to weed out this future “King of the Jews.”
I will find meaning this Christmas, not in the babe in a manger, but with my beautiful daughter, that will be visiting me, and the joy of sharing this special time of year, no matter how we celebrate.
December 25th, 2007 at 4:44 am
It is interesting that the world is divided into three basic types of Christian (yeah, I know, it’s a lot more complicated that that, but bear with me!):
(a) those who believe the Bible is literally true throughout and that nature reflects what is written in the Bible.
(b) those who believe the Bible is literally true throughout and that the Bible reflects what happens in nature.
(c) those who don’t believe the Bible is literally true throughout.
It’s the Christians in the (b) category who worry most over things like the Star of Bethlehem, believing that the story must reflect some natural phenomenon that occurred 2,000 years ago. Sure (a) Christians will also speculate, but it doesn’t matter as much to them since they “know” it happened no matter what the science or historical record tells them.
In the end the (b) Christians get it in the neck from both (a) and (c). The (a) people accuse their (b) brethren of twisting the meaning of the Bible’s text too far to fit natural explanations and the (c) people accuse them of twisting nature too far to fit the Bible’s text.
Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone (yeah, it’s Christmas already here in the UK!) no matter if you’re in group (a) (b) (c) or (d - none to the above).
December 25th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Tre, I don’t think anyone is nit picking, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The A in BA is Astronomer. Astronomers have the ability to go back through history and plot exactly where stars and planets would have been when Jesus was born. They haven’t found anything of significance. Also, what would lend credibility to this story are extra-biblical sources. There are none. The journey of the magi would have taken up to 2 years. That can be assumed because Herod had all male children under 2 killed when the Magi asked his about the birth of Jesus. They would not have seen an object, for example, on a Monday evening, immediately hopped on their camels, and arrived in Bethlehem the next day.
If you believe in the biblical account, great! if it provides a source of strength and faith for you, wonderful. Please don’t judge those that choose not to believe, because we require evidence. For some of us, “Goddidit” is not enough.
December 25th, 2007 at 4:52 am
UFO?
December 25th, 2007 at 5:13 am
I have always been skeptical of the Bethlehem story. If you see a star in the sky, bright or dim, could you really judge the exact point on earth that is directly under it? Would that point, assuming you could judge it, be the same spot an hour later? It would be pretty messed up if the wise men had the wrong address.
If this was some astrological forecast, how could they have been right one time, and so wrong the rest of the time.
Was Jesus ever a king of any kind? I read the bible front to back, and do not recall him ever being in any office, in Israel or anywhere else. As I recall he got in a lot of trouble with the government, but never actually held any seat within the government.
How many pregnant teenage girls would love to get away with the “But, I really am still a virgin”, line? Why be skeptical of all the others, but not of this one? Seems a bit unfair.
December 25th, 2007 at 5:18 am
The Star- Arthur C. Clarke
December 25th, 2007 at 5:20 am
I don’t believe it happened either, but the reports of what happened are a bit off. Heterophenomenologically speaking:
They came from the east. As noted, stars rise in the east and set in the west. They identified this as the star of the king of the Jews, being wise astrologers as they were. So they wandered to Jerusalem, asking about this king that was born. Herod got ticked, and said, where was this king supposed to be born, and they said Bethlehem, because that’s where the prophets fortold he would be born (not because it’s where the star was). Herod then asked them when the star appeared, so he could usurp this king.
The men went off to the west some more, and the star went before them (going west as stars are want to do), until it came directly overhead.
So, the “star” in the story isn’t really doing anything special or exotic in terms of its motions–it’s going from east to west just like everything else does.
Then, to finish our story, after a time, the wise men didn’t show up, and Herod killed all of the two year olds… so it’s not quite like the wise men were at the manger anyway. Then, roughly 75 to 100 years later, a group of people wrote this down to preserve this historical event for future generations.
December 25th, 2007 at 5:21 am
IMHO, the best thing about the Star of Bethlehem tale is that it inspired Arthur C. Clarke’s short story, “The Star”. THAT gives me goosebumps every time!
December 25th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Tre, I don’t believe this “nitpicking” ruins the christmas and beliefs of any real christian. If they have faith they can just go say “It was God’s doing” and go on with their joly celebrating of the baby jeebus.
December 25th, 2007 at 5:48 am
@Tre: Furthermore, this is a blog for skeptics. The occasional “believer” will stumble here either accidentally or because a skeptic is trying to show them otherwise. As far as “belief” goes, what could be more pure than knowledge and reality? It’s the world around us that we deal with day after day, and being a skeptic does not mean that we are any more or less human than any other person. By the way, way to paraphrase Shepherd in Serenity.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:01 am
There is a bunch of indications that the “star” of Bethlehem did exist, and was neither a star nor a comet nor a supernova nor anything quite like that. Consider that the trip took these astrologers months. The biblical account says they saw the star when they were in the east, and they saw it again when they arrived.
It does however not mention that they saw the star all throughout the trip.
Now consider 7 BC. In that year, a conjugation of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of Pisces was seen thrice. In astrological symbolism, Jupiter is a king or lord; Saturn is, among others, a protective symbol for Israel; for the Babylonian astrologers of the time, Pisces was a sign for the west; and finally, rabbinic records exist which say that such a conjugation would signal the coming of the messiah.
Does that constitute proof?
Well, the story’s rather too sparse on details to prove anything about it. But the outlined explanation seems to achieve a decent degree of truthiness, at least.
(If anyone wants to poke holes in it, I’m all ears.)
December 25th, 2007 at 6:16 am
I always thought this passage meant “we saw the star in our home country in the east.” Its a matter of language, not astronomy.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I don’t think anyone needs to poke holes in it, AP. You pointed it out yourself: the story is way too vague. It’s really just a big load of suppositions at this point.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:26 am
As far as miracles, I like CS Lewis’s discussion in his book of the same name. That aside, and considering the aforementioned theories…
As a kid I would see the pictures with the angel over the manger. I imagined the angels having left the sheperds and hanging out in the sky watching the whole thing. Their brightness is what the wisemen saw and followed, leading them right to the scene wherever the baby had moved to by the time they arrived. Alternatively the angels could have stayed just long enough for the wise men to figure it out and read the prophecies. That way the angels wouldn’t get so tired or bored waiting for them to arrive!
Regardless, I like the story. Today I’m not sure what I think–though it’s closest to Mike Lonergan’s exposition. Just got there, and so far Christmas is still christmas! Ole and happy holidays!
December 25th, 2007 at 7:01 am
As long as we’re on the topic of stars and Arthur C. Clarke could anyone tell me if I’m correct in assuming this song was inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey? http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/wintersun/wintersun.html#6
I haven’t read the book, unfortunately, but it’s on my list of things I need to do.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Haven’t read the comments thread, as it’s hell’a late to me and I need get myself off to bed..but..
Geeze, Phil, there’s that whole “pick your battles” thing, and all.. I do not at all decry or denounce your commentary..in fact, I wholly agree with it..but to make that post on Christmas Eve..? That’s just settin’ yerself up as a moving target..
Mind, what’s done is done and let the skep-chips (a shameless play on “Skep-Chicks”) fall where they may..
May you and yours have a wonderful holiday season, regardless of any astronomical basis, thereof.. Feast, enjoy family time in your new home and just plain share the joy of the season.. My best wishes go out to you, this Christmas eve..
December 25th, 2007 at 7:15 am
I personally do not worship Christmas, but I also try not to rain on the parade of others who do. I come here to learn about astronomy as do the high majority of others who visit this site. You do well to consider sticking to that. Poor form.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Ya, but where does the jolly old fat guy in the red suit come in?
December 25th, 2007 at 7:40 am
[…] The (bah) Star of (humbug) Bethlehem I am no fan of Biblical literalism, as searching my Religion category will show. There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples where the Bible cannot be literally true, so why can’t the Star of Bethlehem be yet another example? … […]
December 25th, 2007 at 7:42 am
There’s no concordance - apparently the other gospel authors didn’t think it happened either since it only appears in the Book of Matthew. Matthew (KJV) simply says wise men came after seeing a star and this worried Herod. Anything else is simply reading too much into it. But, like most of what modern xtians believe, the mythmaking is recent and not of biblical origin. The account does not claim they were kings nor does it say how many there were. But, as a myth, it’s a great literary device as it foreshadows the story to follow. It’s also clear, if you keep reading Chap 2, that Jesus was NOT a baby when the wise men came to visit, he was 2 or 3 years old.
Matthew may be my favorite gospel because of the scene where the zombies jump out of the graves and attack the city (27:52-53).
Great analysis, Phil.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Two words, just Two: Death Star
December 25th, 2007 at 8:03 am
I don’t think this is such a downer, which is why I posted it now. It’s not an attack on Christmas; you might notice the silly picture, and the bit at the end. A lot of non-Christians celebrate Christmas as a time for family and to be together, too. I suspect that for most folks, that’s the important thing. If others are actually offended by this post, well, I think their priorities need to be re-aligned.
And besides, who reads blogs on Christmas Eve…?
December 25th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Wow Matt, I didn’t expect to find any Wintersun fans around these parts.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Somehow I’m reminded of the best response to any argument about the implausibility of Superman’s secret identity:
“So let me get this straight: you seem to be able to accept that a man can fly; that he can survive unprotected in space; that he can see through walls, lift entire mountains, fire laser beams from his eyes, and fly around the planet so fast that it actually spins in reverse and makes time go backwards.
“…But when the writers claim that Superman disguises his true identity with a simple pair of eyeglasses, THAT’s when you cry ‘bull****’?!?”
December 25th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Would it be “raining on parades” if I laugh at the fact someone told Phil to stick to astronomy when this is exactly what this post is? I think they mean Phil should stick to astronomy that doesn’t show the falsity of cherished myths. Bad Phil, letting reality ruin a perfectly good make-believe like that!
Happy Yule (or relevant celebration) to all.
December 25th, 2007 at 9:21 am
It was the Starship enterprise, thrown back in time as happened quite often in TOS. It even happened to the Enterprise D and to Voyager.
Of course, it could also have been the Titanic, as Doctor Who was on board to save the day.
December 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I was listening to an interview with a couple of guys that wrote this book: http://www.amazon.com/First-Christmas-Gospels-Really-Jesuss/dp/0061430706
I was all ready for some apologetic stuff - when the guy comes out and says, “It’s a PARABLE people, DEAL with it!”
I am gonna probably have to buy that book.
It was an Astronomer at the Rauch Memorial Planaterium at the U of Louisville who first “informed” me - at the tender age of about 10 - that the passage was probably mistranslated and most likely SHOULD have read “We, in the East, have seen a star….” - this was way back in about 1965-ish. It definately started me on the way to Questioning Everything.
He also introduced me to the Boon Sunrise. That is when you are deep in the middle of a good, personal lecture of the night sky - and he accidently hits the house lights.
JC
December 25th, 2007 at 9:38 am
The mainstream academic understanding of the star story goes like this:
The first gospel written was Mark. Mathew and Luke had Mark in front of them when they wrote their accounts; we know this because they copied parts of Mark word for word. Mark has no nativity story, it begins with Jesus’s baptism by John the Baptist. We can also deduce that Mathew and Luke wrote their accounts independently because everything that is not covered by Mark (before Jesus’s baptism, after his resurrection) is entirely different, including the nativity. About the only thing they agree on with respect to the nativity is that his parents were Mary and Joseph, Mary was a virgin, and he was born in Bethlehem. One has a manger, the other doesn’t. One has shepherds, the other doesn’t. One has three wise men, one has a census, etc.
Mathew was written by a Jew. We know this because in some of the part of Mark he copied, he quietly corrected some errors Mark made about Jewish practice. We can also deduce from the text that one of Mathew’s main target audiences was Jews, and one of his goals was to convince Jews that Jesus was the legitimate Jewish Messiah (in contrast, Luke is directed at Gentiles).
Soooo, the current default consensus is that Mathew put the Three Wise Men in for symbolic reasons. They are Magi, Persian holy men. The gifts represented an earthly king (gold) a divine king (frankincense, I think, was used to scent the oil used to anoint a Hebrew King), and a priest (myrrh, I think, was an expensive aromatic resin burned in the temple). Or something like that — I can’t find the source right now — but I believe that was the idea.
So, yeah, it’s just a story. Mathew made it up to make a theological point. Looking for astronomical explanations is going to be pointless.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I have heard that the origin of this story comes from ancient astrolonomy?
On the night of the winter solstice, the three stars in Orion’s belt (the 3 Kings) line up with Sirius to show the spot where the sun will rise in the morning. In olden times, ancient astronomers would track the position of the sunrise relative to these stars, and when it was in the right position, they knew the winter solstice was upon them. On the day of the winter solstice, the sun is “reborn” and the days get longer, and yada yada yada.
Maybe that’s bad astronomy.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Some powerful retconning going on here…
- Jack
December 25th, 2007 at 10:44 am
To be fair, the Arabs didn’t really arise as a civilisation until the 8th century or so, so whether they were good astronomers or not is largely irrelevant. That said, the Greek and Egyptian astronomers were getting pretty good. Claudios Ptolemaios wasn’t born yet, but Hipparchos had done a lot of work systemising the Babylonian and Sumerian observations. Hipparchos didn’t have too much interest in astrology, but the ideas were still being toyed with by others.
I would have posted yesterday, but I was busy enjoying a non-religious solstice celebration with my family. Unfortunately, the weather prevented me from seeing the occultation.
December 25th, 2007 at 11:30 am
@Kimpatsu — you’re my hero
December 25th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I recall, Phil, that you wrote a similar essay for a German newspaper. I think it is great that you discourage these kind of shows at planetaria. Actually it is a natural question for a Christian to ask, and yours is the best answer! While I’m fairly sure Jesus was an actual person, certainly there has been a huge motive to fill in the blanks about who was the hero of early Christians. For example there is a little known book called the Gospel of Thomas, it in fact has (a likely) manufactured epic of Jesus as a child, sort of a divine brat who is coming to grips with his power. I’m a big fan of stories, and even temporary suspension of disbelief to feel the stories and make them relevant to our own lives. That said I agree with Ehrman Minor’s analysis on the symbolism of certain features of the Matthew story. That stories often have symbolic elements that are often hard for modern readers to discern. There are a few issues for the modern reader: symbols aren’t relevant anymore, modern readers aren’t as astute at stories, for some the depth of deep poetry isn’t something people train for. When we read it is rather like a phone book or an instruction manual what you see is what you get. Before television symbolic depth was something that really gave words a lot of bang for the buck. The star is a metaphor wouldn’t be much interest in a planetarium but that’s likely what it was.
December 25th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Wow…TWO passages written many years after the supoosed event, recognized by NO other authors, describing events NOT observed by any other cultures at the time, and there have been countless articles, books, movies, songs and poems written based on it.
Frankly, I don’t call that a preponderance of evidence for ANYTHING having happened at all…
December 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
[…] Phil Plait, de Bad Astronomy, analiza el movimiento de la supuesta estrella. El resultado es, efectivamente, ¡paparruchas! | Trackback […]
December 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“Arabs … were phenomenal astronomers”
In the first century?
December 25th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Hello, look blessings. YES, blessings on you at CHRISTMAS! Doesnt matter what you believe as long at it changes you somewhat, and causes you to remember the homeless, the poor, and the less fortunate this holiday season, Put an extra coin in the kettle jar of the sally ann or whatever you choose to do. That’ is what I would like to think Jesus would be like anyway, not caring if one was poor, gay ,bi, straight, democrat, republican or whatever, can we please co-exist? Tanks.
December 25th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
The caravans of the desert navigated by the stars.
December 25th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
It’s already been debunked already … by The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams (the leader of the world’s Anglicans), who recently went and wreaked the Three Wise Men story - http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=29&ContentID=51786.
Apparently ‘stars don’t do that‘!
http://podblack.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/noodly-holidays/
December 25th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
@Ehrman Minor (and what the heck, everyone else — it’s Christmas!)
There is another facet here — astrology was, for Jews of the time the gospel of Matthew was written, as verboten as homosexuality and adultery. So not only were the Magi foreigners, they were foreigners who practised an abomination.
The point is, though, that these guys were able to correctly spot the birth of the King of the Jews whilst up to their necks in sin, and were so sure of their reading they travelled for months to see the child and lavish gifts upon him when they finally found him. This is in stark contrast to Herod and his religious cronies who lived all of six miles away in Jerusalem and tried to have Jesus killed.
This is a recurring theme throughout the book of Matthew — Gentiles and sinners also have a stake in the Kingdom of God, and Jews aren’t automatically a part of the new Covenant by virtue of their race and religion.
I think a similar lesson could be adapted for many modern Christian churches!
December 25th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
It’s really obvious what happened. The “wise men” story got tacked onto the nativity story early-on in the history of the church. It probably helped lend an air of authenticity for new converts, and it probably happened like this:
Teacher: “So, ready to join our church?”
New Convert: “I’m not sure - so how do you know this Jesus guy is the real deal? He was born in a barn, not really impressive …”
Teacher: “Well, when he was born, a bunch of shepherds came over and totally adored him.”
New Convert: “Pfft. Shepherds. You want me to base my belief system on a bunch of shepherds? I wouldn’t trust shepherds to do my laundry.”
Teacher: “Oh yeah? Well, some other men ALSO showed up and adored him later, and they weren’t stupid shepherds. They were, like, all wise and stuff.”
New Convert: “Hmm. Interesting. Where did these ‘wise men’ come from?”
Teacher: “Umm…. the east? People are really wise out there. There were, like, um, maybe three of them.”
New Convert: “So how did THEY know Jesus was the real deal?”
Teacher: “Well … I think … I mean, I know … well, there was a big huge star, and when it appeared, they knew, because they are all wicked crazy wise and are always looking at stars and stuff.”
New Convert: “Wow, a star, that makes sense. So these wise men were able to physically observe this star? It proves the divinity of Jesus?”
Teacher: “Oh, totally. It was in the east. Plus they brought gifts!”
New Convert: “How did they find him? I mean, the star appeared, signaling the magical birth, but how did they find out where he was staying so they could drop off the gifts?”
Teacher: “Umm … I think they followed the star right to him, man, it like … hovered right over him and led them right to him.”
New Convert: “Wow, that’s quite a star.”
Teacher: “He’s quite a savior.”
New Convert: “OK, I’m converted now. When do we get to ritually drink his blood?”
…
December 25th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Matt writes:
[[Furthermore, this is a blog for skeptics. The occasional “believer” will stumble here either accidentally or because a skeptic is trying to show them otherwise.]]
Really? There’s a religious test for entering this blog? I didn’t see anything posted.
I’m a believer, and I came here because I love astronomy and the debunking of pseudoscience. I know the evangelical atheists like to take over any internet venue they can to spread their religion, but who is and isn’t allowed in BA should probably be determined by Dr. Plait, rather than by the internet yahoos.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
if the story of the bethlehem star is in the bible, and you are alive today, what gives you the right to judge and why would you even want to?, ruin the thoughts and dreams of people who do actually
find something pure for once in thier lives to believe in??
Uh, I think it’s that he has a functioning brain. That’s what gives him the right to judge.
Damn, how does a person like you even find a blog like this?
December 25th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
“Led by a star? Led by a bottle, more like!”
– Mrs Cohen
December 25th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I haven’t read the comments above, so maybe my point has been mentioned:
Over the time I am visting this blog maybe you remember my nickname and that I am studying (astro)physics but also that I believe in a (christian) god.
And Phil! You mentioned something that is very important in my way of believing. I do not take the bible literally. I prefer thinking about what the story wants to TELL me and how I can use it in my own way of life!
An example: “The blinds can see again”. Let’s think about it: If you have trouble with a physical problem and don’t know how to solve it and some one comes around and gives you a hint and suddenly - bam! - you’ve got the answer! That is (more or less) what “the blinds can see again” means to me - although the bible meant it for religious reasons of course! (You can choose many other examples, of course)
Anyway, let’s just say:
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all of you!
December 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Oh man, spare me! For the heck of it, I went to Answers in Genesis to see what they had to say about this “star”:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/star-of-bethlehem
Curiously, the magi seem to have been the only ones who saw the star—or at least the only ones who understood its meaning. Israel’s King Herod had to ask the magi when the star had appeared (Matthew 2:7). If the magi
alone saw the star, this further supports the notion that the star of Bethlehem was a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a common star, which would have been visible to all.
One would think that any normal person would look at that as evidence that it was just made up. Nice way to avoid having to deal with the lack of winesses/evidence for a biblical story.
December 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Oh man, spare me! For the heck of it, I went to Answers in Genesis to see what they had to say about this “star”:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/star-of-bethlehem
Curiously, the magi seem to have been the only ones who saw the star—or at least the only ones who understood its meaning. Israel’s King Herod had to ask the magi when the star had appeared (Matthew 2:7). If the magi
alone saw the star, this further supports the notion that the star of Bethlehem was a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a common star, which would have been visible to all.
One would think that any normal person would look at that as evidence that it was just made up. Nice way to avoid having to deal with the lack of winesses/evidence for a biblical story
December 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
zounds
I was all set to take up the explanation, expecting to be one of, if not THE, first responders. I mean, who in his right mind is blommenting at this time of day on National Be Nice To Others day?
Instead, I find a horde of insomniacs have not only been at it most of the night, they’ve covered all the ground I intended to cover. I gotta get a bigger tarp.
All in all, I tend to regard the story as made up out of whole cloth, with a little bit of history thrown in for local color - and, cynic that I am, I atribute that to bad translation, rather than any design on the part of the author.
I notice that a couple of blommenters have mentioned drugs (typically tongue in cheek) and hallucinations… Actually, I think there could well be something to this…one only need read the Odessy (or was it Iliad.. I forget) about the Lotus Eaters. So we know that fun drugs were A) known, B) used well before the time of Herod.. and we, as a species, have a history of totally messing with our minds in an effort to see better (I do NOT understand that.. but .. well, that’s a discussion for another time).
THe problem is, they atribute the drug craze to the wise men - not to Matthew, Luke, or Mark….
Y’all have a great Present Day (and a great future, too). I’m gonna mosey back to the kitchen and snitch another stickybun.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Tre: When the hard core Christian right seeks to impose their will on the rest of society (such as pretending that intelligent design is some sort of science that deserves to be taught in public schools), I think the rest of us are entitled to “nit pick” if that’s what it takes to defend rational thought and reason.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
BA,
For a couple of ideas that you haven’t included in your post, check out the DVD “The Star of Bethlehem.” You might not enjoy the “designer” aspects of it, but the guy looks at the “star” as a series of astronomical events, not a single exhibiting non-normal behavior.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Great post, but you’re forgetting something.
“Whenever you notice something like that… a wizard did it.”
Cheers!
December 25th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Some of the readers here really should read Josephs Campbells book, ” The Heros Journey”. It’s a recapitulation of the myths and legends that give rise to all those stories of excellence throughout our history.
The Jesus story is lifted (nearly whole) from Egyptian myths. Including the resurrection,,,
,,,but that’s ok, Skeptics,,,,Santa still loves you anyway,,,
Peace,
GAry 7
December 25th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Here is an alternative theory:
http://www.daveexmachina.com/wordpress/?p=2072
December 25th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
@Reynold Hall: So, the star was all in their heads?
The incense was really strong stuff.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
[…] bookmarks tagged interesting The (bah) Star of (humbug) Bethlehem saved by 1 others JinzoCreed bookmarked on Tue Dec 25,2007 | […]
December 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Well, at least Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe had a highway under theirs.
Concluding lines from ‘The Misfits’ (1961):
Roslyn: Which way is home?
Gay: God bless you girl.
Roslyn: How do you find your way back in the dark?
Gay: Just head for that big star straight on. The highway’s under it. It’ll take us right home.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:02 am
@Gary Ansorge
>The Jesus story is lifted (nearly whole) from Egyptian myths. Including the resurrection,,,
… You’re building a mystery …
December 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
>The Jesus story is lifted (nearly whole) from Egyptian myths. Including the resurrection,
A lot of two birth stories, stories from his adult life, and stories regarding his resurrection definitely have been lifted or influenced by other myths and legends.
However, what is probably historically true would include following:
1) He was from Nazareth
2) He was Jewish
3) His parents were named Mary and Joseph
4) He was baptized by John the Baptist
5) He was an itinerant preacher in Galilee
6) He was rejected by most of the towns he visited
7) He had an apocalyptic message that differed from other contemporary apocalyptic teachings. Specifically, he taught that a) God was going to throw the Romans out and establish his kingdom in Jerusalem b) if you want to survive the apocalypse, you should humble yourself and relinquish all power and wealth, lest you be cast out yourself; the more you are humbled the greater will be your glory in the coming kingdom and c) in order to prepare for the kingdom, you should live your life as if it were already here.
He was betrayed by one of his own followers, then arrested and crucified by Pontius Pilate during the festival of Passover, for the crime of sedition, specifically for claiming that he was the King of the Jews
9) His followers honestly believed he rose from the dead, and that his resurrection was the first of a general resurrection of the dead. This made sense when taken with 7b: he had submitted ultimate act of humiliation, hence he would be glorified above all.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:16 am
uknesvuinng it was biblical commentary pure and simple. I do not agree with the general concensus of said account, and as I said before I do not involve myself with Christmas. But the bible is full of stories of burning bushes, resurrections, and voices coming from heaven. If people choose to believe all these other stories, then I don’t think they’ll have a hard time believing that a celestial body was made manifest, even if temporarily, in order for the child to be found. Good luck though. I hope everyone has a good, safe time with their families regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:24 am
And as a final note I myself have mis-interpretted the meaning of this website. I thought it was just basically for astronomy with a political\religion forum for kicks. I now see it centers around one dude’s blog which doesn’t interest me. I’ll link directly to the astronomy forum and bypass the commentary in the future so that you don’t have to deal with my “preaching”.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:31 am
From what I have been told … the ‘Star’ .. was an angel, moving along in the sky leading the way. It makes perfect sense, and fits the story nicely on all levels, that is. if you believe in the possible existence angels.
Of course this goes along the lines of not being scientific, but it fits. I guess its a faith thing. I am not really sure if its possible, but I do know one thing, as a lover of science I can’t in all honesty dismiss the possibility that there is other life in the universe. It’s all ET. If it was an angel, who is to say it wasn’t using power that although appearing ’supernatural’, was solely in the realm of what is possible in physics. I really can’t see much of a difference with that and searching for life on other planets. One idea has more mythical baggage, but just because man has a great imagination, doesn’t mean some of this mythical stuff can’t be somewhat true.
Please don’t glance at this post and think I’m ranting about angels, as I have just as much trouble as most of you in believing in that sort of thing, but I refuse to be close minded as to what is possible and what isn’t. EG: I think searching for life on other planets is a waste of time, but is that going to stop the ET hunters ? no. It comes down to faith. You can crunch numbers till the cows come home, but nobody is really 100% positive, either way. I don’t have faith in life on other worlds, but I would love to be proven wrong. That’s why I love science.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Dear Phil: Quit copying me.
<3
The Angry Astronomer
December 26th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Randome additions: they were “wise ones,” not necessarily men, and not three. So go buy however many new figures of whatever type you like for your local nativity scene to make it more literal.
Don’t navigational star readings often take place when you can see the horizon. IE at dusk (or dawn)? So if you always take your readings at dusk, couldn’t you see a star “in the east” each day? I like the they saw it “from the East” mistranslation thought myself.
This is a story that was added a hundred years later to boost credibility, folks have made that obvious point.
The separation of the stories is worth noting. The angels weren’t in Matthew, the “wise ones” weren’t anywhere else. Mark (the first written) didn’t have a birth, hell it didn’t originally have a resurrection! They added that later. Talk about a cliffhanger. That’s how the disciples must have felt, abandoned and lost. So they started telling each other stories.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:50 am
[…] I figured this one out when I was about 6 Filed under: education, stolen — Tags: astronomy — misterpost @ 7:15 pm The Bad Astronomer points out a few minor flaws in the Christmas story. […]
December 26th, 2007 at 4:14 am
My 2 pence–late as they may be.
I’m uncertain why some of you would bother posting, having nothing significant or thought-provoking to …Okay, I might as well rant a little.
At no point was any of this “bright and obvious”, Phil. In fact, it was something that went unnoticed by the rest of the folks mentioned in the Bible. Herod even asked the Magi when they had seen the star. Whatever they saw must have been a sign needing interpretation and not a large marker on google maps. John Armstrong, I completely agree with you.
It truly bothers me when people cannot accept that the Bible can be read in a non-literal fashion. An editor I know once said, “There is no one so illiterate as the literal-minded.” It is not just the religious who fall into this illiteracy. I’ve read too many atheistic writings that treat the Bible as if it were a literal explanation of how we got here instead of a revelatory insight into our human nature, interpersonal relationships, and connections between our souls and the divine. There are truths told in the Bible, which cannot be discerned through a scientific lens. Truths about who we really are that only the mythic can relate. Someone once defined a myth as a truth greater than the facts.
The Bible is a great piece of Literature. Is it so profane to some of you to read it in that fashion, even to criticize it as such? Surely literal-minded perspectives can only discourage people from appreciating the Bible as the literary masterpiece it is. It would be like reading Shakespeare or Tolkien for the plots and not the beautiful language. You might as well read the Bible as you would some technical manual. I agree with Robert Alter who said that while authors of the KJV may have been deficient in Hebrew, readers today are deficient in English.
For those of you confused at whom I’m preaching to, your deep-seeded prejudices betray you. Stop being so holier-than-thou; I’m not convinced. My Christmas wish for all of you would be to reflect on the work of the late Francis Church–my favorite piece of Christmas literature.
http://www.stormfax.com/virginia.htm
What moral will you read into it when you go there? As Yoda said, “Only what you take with you.”
There. I feel better now! :o)
December 26th, 2007 at 5:16 am
“Right away, I have to wonder: if the wise men came from the east to Jerusalem, and they saw the star in the east, then following it they would have traveled away from Jerusalem, not toward it! They started east of the city, and headed east. So am I missing something here?”
By the way, Phil. They didn’t start following the ’star’ until they were actually in Jerusalem. Matthew says they were headed to Bethlehem after seeing the star because of prophecies suggesting that’s where the messiah would be found. …and now you can stop wondering. :o)
The story is quite believable to me up until the point where it says the star came to rest over where the young child was. I simply cannot understand what is being inferred here. But the rest of the account seems plausible.
–Terry
December 26th, 2007 at 6:05 am
However, what is probably historically true would include following:
1: Rome ruled over a great many old cultures, allowing a free flow of ideas and information from the near east and northern Africa into southern Europe.
2: The Council of Nicaea collected a lot of resultant regional myths propagated by various popular doomsday cults (that had long troubled the increasingly unstable militancy of the Roman state) and built a ‘one true way’ religion out of it to better keep the people in line.
3: Names of exotic foreign places and their historical rulers where used as a setting for the story of society’s salvation, with the key point “Suffer in silence and obedience and you too can be happy after you die; do not fight the power.”
December 26th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Long time reader, first time poster.
/cliche
My $0.02 is that this is something that still happens today.
Not the miraculous star, but the idea that things in the sky are unpredictable. I work at a nuclear power plant, and find people that are surprised that the Moon is full or that Mars is near the Moon. The fact that someone 200 years ago could have predicted both of them seems to be something people repeat but don’t *act* like they believe.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:35 am
I have one question.
What the heck did Asian astrologers have to do with a middle-eastern religion? Why were they hip with all the prophesies of the Torah? Why would they even give a rat’s keester who the king of the Jews was?
OK, that was three questions. But they all pertain to the non-relevance of a small local religion to the relatively advanced cultures of the east who were probably way more interested in their own religions and politics of the time.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Why does everyone hate Christianity these days. What is so scary about it? Wow! If you are an atheist why are you so full of hate? Get over it. If you think it is just a fable or story why so spiteful against it. Just bigotry? Probably.
I am no bible scholar but what if the wisemen were from the east but traveling in the west at the time?
I am from the south but have traveled in the north. Just because I am in the north doesn’t mean I could not see things in the southern sky while I was there. So what’s the problem? You are reading a lot more into it than is required. Or, is it just the hateful anti-Christian bigotry that makes you look for something to discredit the bible? Hey, I like your hat.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
rswartz: I fail to see how questioning something that millions of people take as fact, without providing evidence to back up their claims, can be interpreted as hatred. I haven’t really seen anyone here spouting rank hatred. I do see people questioning one, or some of the basic teachings of the Christian faith. Now, it seems like you are saying that when we do question your faith (assuming you are a Christian), it is hatred and persecution. Many of us here have studied the Bible and followed it’s teachings for many years, as I did, before coming to the conclusion that the evidence it provides for the existence of God is very tenacious at best.
Listen, I would be the first to re-embrace Christianity if any of it’s claims could be verified. If the Shroud of Turin could be proven to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, and the image burned into it by some type of radiation that could prove the resurrection, then I would believe it. If they could prove unequivocally that Noah’s ark rests on Ararat in Turkey, it would go along way to bolstering the validity of the Bible. It is not simply enough to say “Goddidit.”
December 26th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Two things: Eratosthenes not only calculated the diameter of the Earth, but discovered the precession of the pole - all around 200 BC. Get your ’scope out and duplicate this feat! This is very different from the building of mythos, Biblical or not, and indicates to me that Biblical authors worked at the equivalent of the National Enquirer. They put out such popular stuff that we STILL have to fight crap like “the Earth is flat”, the Earth is “young”, and the “Flood” happened.
Then, the present site of Nazareth was a burial ground c.2007 years ago. There are no records of it existing for nearly 200 years AD. Properly, we should quit “begging the question” about it being anyone’s birthplace at that time.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:49 am
To answer some of these questions, consider:
http://www.bethlehemstar.com/
I was puzzled about this as well until I found this man’s explanation.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
StevoR
Some info on the Planetary name origins for you.
The Roman Saturn = Cronos in Greek (Son of Uranus).
Uranus was the Latinized word for Ouranos the Greek Sky Father and Grandfather to Zeus (Jove or Jupiter in Roman).
Jupiter (The King)
Saturn (The King’s Father)
Uranus (The King’s Grandfather)
I’m sure that their brightness in the night sky had something to do with the names given to each of them. But that’s more about Astrology and Myth than Astronomy.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I love how posts are given a local time stamp then sorted as if given a universal time stamp. My posts appear in order before the people they are providing info too. It’s almost like I’m psychic or something. What will the BA think of that?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Gary posts:
[[The Jesus story is lifted (nearly whole) from Egyptian myths. Including the resurrection,,,]]
I can see you haven’t actually read the Egyptian myths.
The resurrection of Osiris involved his many body parts being physically sewn back together by his sister and wife, Isis — except for one very important part, which remains missing. And after his “resurrection,” Osiris became king of the dead.
Yeah. Just like the Resurrection.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
tussock writes:
[[The Council of Nicaea collected a lot of resultant regional myths propagated by various popular doomsday cults (that had long troubled the increasingly unstable militancy of the Roman state) and built a ‘one true way’ religion out of it to better keep the people in line.]]
Ah, the conspiracy theory of Biblical inspiration.
tussock, the Council of Nicaea was concerned simply and solely with suppressing the Arian heresy. It had nothing to do with collecting myths or keeping anybody but Bishop Arius and his followers in line.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Michael Lonergan posts:
[[Many of us here have studied the Bible and followed it’s teachings for many years, as I did, before coming to the conclusion that the evidence it provides for the existence of God is very tenacious at best.]]
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
The story of the magi bears symbology that in the antique and medieval world probably everyone, at least everyone of knowlegde, would have understood. Much of it was explained before in this thread, so I just add something not yet mentioned: The three have been understood as symbols of a) the age of men, i.e. youth, matureness, old age, as well as the known continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. So what the story basically told to in pre-modern times is that the entire humanity and world (as known then) came to bow to the birth of the son-of-god. This symbology is just too good to leave it out, and possibly good enough to invent it to make those pagans understand that they should _really_ think it over and convert. The star of Betlehem then would just just a mock-up to get the magi there in time. In any other book such a thing would have been called deus-ex-machina, while in the bible it’s called deus alone.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“There are only two options: if it stayed in the east then it either orbited the Earth at a nearly or exactly geosynchronous rate (taking 24 hours to go around once, so it appeared to hang in one spot in the sky like a TV satellite), or it was a miracle and just hung there. The first is physically impossible, and the second…”
Phil, are you saying it is physically impossible for a natural object, of sufficient luminosity to be noticed from the earth’s surface, to be in a temporary near-geosynchronous orbit? Its apparent motion of moving from west to east would indicate it was decelerating, supposing the “standing over” part only indicated the people searching reached Jesus at the same time it appeared to be directly overhead.
While the chances of such an event occurring must be minuscule, (you’d know better than I) isn’t it nevertheless possible this could happen? And because such a phenomena would be so rare, that the last time it happened, some people (without the aid of telescopes and spectrascopes and such, thought it portended a significant religious event?
Just sayin’
December 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
“East of East” by the Alpha Band?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
While many myths involve resurrected gods, I’m not sure how much effect this has on the veracity of the gospel writers. Just because there were similar stories about resurrection, doesn’t necessarily mean the gospel writers were fabricating anything. Luke states up front that he researched the stories of Jesus and interviewed witnesses, Paul challenges the reader to confirm his writings with the eyewitnesses.
Btw - the gospels were not written “centuries” after the fact, by people unfamiliar with the events in order to placate and control the masses. Scientific analysis of verifiable events within the gospels and Paul’s letters, together with quotes of the gospels by other writers indicate they were written, and in wide circulation prior to ~110 ad.
Additionally, if the gospels were pure fabrication, why are there so many seeming inconsistencies? Shouldn’t they all agree? If the First Council of Nicea went to all the trouble of creating these, wouldn’t you think they’d get the gospels in better agreement with each other?
Just sayin’
December 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I heard the same theory Keith Arnauld did. The way I understand it, the theory says a conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn would have warned them something was up. Subsequently, Jupiter and Venus had a conjunction, which would signify birth, after which Jupiter made a retrograde loop past Regulus (the Royal star). So to the astrological mind, the “king star” made three passes by the royal star, meaning “the king of kings”. Leo was apparently taken to mean “Judea”, possibly.
Apparently other cultures did note the unusual series of celestial events around 2-3 BC.
I personally kind of like this idea. The arrival of the magi would be a strange story to make up out of whole cloth, in my opinion.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
So what about the star reputedly seen at the birth og The Great Leader Kim Il Sung?
Huh?
Merry Christmas everyone!
December 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
While Gary is not quite correct in saying that the Jesus story was lifted from Egyptian myths, I think the point is that there are many parallels in the Jesus story with stories about Osiris and Horus, Mithras, Krishna and the Buddha.
In my opinion, it’s like taking elements from all your favourite movies, then combining them into one big movie of your own. Of course, you’d also need to use a bit of your own creativity to turn it into an effective story.
For example, compare the story of Herod slaughtering all the male children (the “Massacre of the Innocents”) because he felt his throne was in jeopardy from the King of the Jews with the story of King Kamsa, who had been told through prophecy that he would die at the hands of Princess Devaki’s eighth son, and so planned to kill all of her children. Certainly not an exact copy of the story, but you can see the similarity in the theme. (It’s also interesting that there doesn’t appear to be any other source of information on Herod’s child-murdering antics!)
Same with Osiris. The manner of his death and resurrection are very different from the Jesus story, but the theme of death and resurrection are very much there, as they are in several myths that pre-date Christianity.
So it’s not that the Biblical authors directly copied from earlier myths, but used them and modified them for their own story.
As an analogy, let’s do the following. Phil’s favourite film in the whole world, “Armageddon” is about an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, and a plan to divert it from its course using a nuclear weapon. Is it unique? No. For example, the film “Meteor” predates it by nearly 20 years, and it to contains a story about an asteroid on a collision course with Earth and a plan to divert it using nuclear weapons. However, in the earlier “myth”, the asteroid is merely 8km wide and the nuclear weapon is an illegal nuclear weapon satellite, and they have to join forces with the Russians in order to save mankind. In the later “myth”, the Americans have to land on the asteroid (which is over 1200km wide!) and physically place the nuclear weapon under the surface.
Both films essentially have the same premise - big rock heading for earth that would wipe out humanity if it hits, so international collaboration (remember that in Armageddon, they dock with Mir!) to use a nuclear weapon to divert it. Things go wrong at the start, but eventually everything works out fine. But the actual detail within the films are often very different.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
At Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, for more than 2 decades, we produced a program that examined possibilities. If there actually was “a star” (and astrologers (”Magi”) of the time took the term to mean ANY astronomical object or event or series of events), then we felt we could examine any historical accounts from the time and even consult Chinese astronomical records to rule out ideas.
Much of a historical search tries to pin down the birth of Jesus surrounding an account by Josephus talking about how Herod died close to a lunar eclipse. Most historians have assumed it was the lunar eclipse of March 4 BC that Josephus was talking about.
But actually, it is NOT at all clear that Herod died in 4 BC. According to Ernest Martin in “The Birth of Christ Recalculated”, the 4 BC eclipse was only a partial eclipse, and there wasn’t enough time for all the historical events that needed to happen between that eclipse and the following Passover (about 1 month).
What fits MUCH better is the eclipse of January 9/10 1 BC, which allowed 3 months until the following Passover.
You can use Starry Night to simulate an evocative Star of Bethlehem. Set yourself up for Baghdad, June 17, 2 BC. Look west after sunset, roughly towards the direction of Jerusalem. You’ll see Jupiter and Venus, very close together. As the evening wears on, the planets are too close for the unaided eye to see them as one object, which means you have the brightness of both (admitted, not much brighter than Venus alone, but the Magi were astrologers and would have attached significance to the grouping). The night before and the night after, the planets were widely separated. This could be a plausible reason why King Herod had to ask the Wise Men what time the Star appeared — with chance conjunctions that most people would have missed, only the astrologers would have paid it any mind. (Or been expecting it.)
Most historians agree that Jesus could not have been born on December 25. Shepherds weren’t tending flocks then, and that’s when the early Christians moved their celebration so that it corresponded with the Saturnalia — the Romans would be too busy or drunk to bother with Christians.
The Magi might have seen “the Star” when they were IN THE EAST, or they might have been recounting the 1st of three conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter. There might be astrological reasons (all hooey, of course) why such a conjunction near Regulus (”The King Star”) would have been considered important.
About 10 months after an original conjunction, the third one appeared in June 2 BC. Perhaps the Magi saw it as their final “sign”; they gathered gifts, headed to Jerusalem/Bethlehem, and they might not have arrived until December 2 BC, when it would have been fitting to give gifts as part of the Saturnalia. But Jesus was no longer in the manger (having been born the previous late Spring or Summer), and he was in a house.
Read Ernest Martin’s book — good historical information backed by sources. Not exciting reading, though. I like the astronomical detective work, provided that Matthew wasn’t just embellishing Luke. Matthew is the ONLY source for the Star of Bethlehem story, and as many have remarked, he might have only been trying to make a point.
I sure wish I had seen that final conjunction of Jupiter and Venus through a telescope, though. What a sight that would have been!
(Even better than going back to when Galileo mistook Neptune for a Jovian moon.)
December 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
My understanding is the whole of Christmas was a syntheusis of several different groups customs and ideas starting with the Roman festival called ‘Saturnalia’ which honoured Rome’s agricultural god Saturn (as in the planet - Greek version = Uranus?) with feasting, drinking and gift-giving. It was also a celebration of the winter solstice. (For thn hemisphere natch.)
Post-Roman em,pire conversiontoChristianity (4th century AD?) vChristains chosethis time to celebrate the birth of their hero-God.
Moreover, (either then or later) Christmas also combined some elements of other cultures solstice ceremonies - notably the Yule log (Christmas tree) ideas of the Vikings who had similar solstice-related feasting rituals as shown in the “Worst Xmas Jobs in History” doco recently on Aussie TV ABC /SBS…
Distilled down, Xmas is, like the english language, really a bit of a
hodge-podge of ideas and customs from different places that’s evolved
and morphed into the festival we know and love today.
Without meaning to knock it in any way, the nativity of Christ is
only one aspect of this festival. Not one I personally disagree with
folks celebrating necessarily but .. Well, one thing we do know is
the month of Christs birth wasn’t December! Jesus was probably born
in about April / May. Why? Among other things, because the shepherds
were guarding their flocks which were kept in pens / houses during
the snowy winter months but allowed to graze (and had their lambs) at
nights in the warmer springtime months. If the shepherds were there
as in the traditional Biblical view it can’t have been December! Not
that it really matters.
Some astronomers and scientists - for example, Duncan Steel in his
book ‘Eclipse’ * - have used dates of astronomical events - notably
conjuctions + of Venus & Jupiter plus solar and Lunar eclipses to
calculate various dates for Jesus’s birth and crucificion.
Various possible explanations and dates for the “Christmas star” have been proposed :
1) Planetary conjunction(s) +,
2) A bright comet - Which can look star-like if seen head on & is famously depicted by Giotto in his Nativity scene painting.
3) a) Novae …
or b) supernova - which were indistinguishable for people back then lacking spectrographs! A nova could have been brief enough or in the wrong position to be seen from China but visible elsewhere you’d think or if faint could perhaps have still been noticed by sufficentlyobservant astronomer-astrologers … perhaps?
Or variant c) I wonder if an outburst from Eta Carinae or another Luminous Blue Variable or another variable star (even Mira type)temporarily achieving sufficent luminosity to create something new and odd to practiced observers … (which the Magi _were_ even if their explanations were non-scientific &astrological …)
4) A gesynchronous satellite over Bethlehem - Now how it got there whether it was human or alien in origin is of course a whole other can of worms …! (Yes, I know humans at that time could’nt have built one -not unless the Atlanteans existed and were powerful eough or the Mayans (???) really had aircraft to spot the Nazca plain patterns & went one better or, heck, unless it came from the future or ..whatever. Yeah its unlikely! A lot that happens is!;-))
5) it was Supernatural - & then all bets are
off…
&, of course,
6) as the BA says it was just a story, a made-up metaphor …
Which could be BUT .. well .. that ain’t testable. Not really. Not well. & it just ain’t much fun.
I’d prefer tyo look at other possibilitie sthatrcoudl eventually be tested. Simply because its more interesting, more imaginative, more fun …
Besides just coz its in the Bible doesn’t mean its NOT true all the same. Quite a few people - even some lawyers - reckon the gospel authors make reasonable witnesses after all.
Afriend of mien noted : “It was long believed that Christian hijacked the day, but in real terms they just joined in the celebrations by doing
something they believed in. Time and the faith made it one of the
most prominent celebrations in all time.”
I’d agree. ‘Hijacked’ is probably a bit too harsh a description and one I
would’t use. I’d describe be tehChristianisingof Xmas as a synthesis or fusion, of combining various elements and adding a Christian aspect to ongoing pagan customs or along those lines but, yeah, that’s just my understanding & I know there are others with differing views.
Thatfriedn also added : “The other interesting thing is that the early settlers of the USA saw Christmas as a pagan celebration and did not celebrate it. Philadephia actually banned the celebration of Christmas in those early times. I think it is funny that those same bans are creeping
back into US society.”
And a similar historical ban happened one year in England too under, if I
recall right, Cromwell. There was something on that shown with
the “Worst Christmas jobs” doco : Some poor saps had to go around
seeing all the shops were open on Christmas while facing an angry pro-
Xmas mob and were able only to close one shop - the others kept
opening behind them and the mob celebrated the day anyway. Proving
the prohibition of expression - or festivals - really doesn’t work.
As for the PC-motivated bans in America; I think they’ve probably
been over-exaggerated by the US media and the US conservative
Evangelical Christian “Right” but, yes, such PC bans (or forced
twists like saying “Holiday greetings” rather than “Merry Christmas”)
are ridiculous, petty and counter-productive.
I totally disagree with people trying to impose their narrow-mindedness on others. Whether that person is Pope Urban VII ,Osama bin Laden, George Bush or RichardDawkins is irrelevant.
How people spend Christmas and what meaning they put into it is, far as I’m concerned, entirely up to them & if one community wants to
emphasise “Christ” while another prefers the focus to be on “~mass”
why not let each to her own? As long as no group actually harms
another - & just being “offended” doesn’t count! - let each group &
community celebrate as they choose. I’ve no argument with Christians
telling Jews, Muslims, athiests etc .. to back off and let people
have their Christmas fun as they wish - provided those Christian
groups apply the same logic in letting atheists, Muslims, Buddhists,
etc .. celebrate _their_ customs and Holy days in peace.
(Hmmn .. Holy Days for athiests? Dawkins birthday? Galileos trial
…)
maybe?
Finally my friend wrote :
“Regardless of what you believe, faith, no faith, it is difficult to
argue the effect of this time on the world, now and throughout
history. If the [Christmas] day offers a little bit of hope and
togetherness in a world often at war, or in disagreement, then it is
still a good thing.”
& Hear! Hear! I’ll second that.
I’ll also wish everyone a great New Year incl. wishing everyone - a
long way in advance - a very merry Christmas for 2008! (Since its now
too late to do that for this year - hope y’all had a good’un! ;-D )
* I’d give the reference details but that was a book I borrowed which
I don’t have handy to quote from. ‘Eclipse’ is a good read although
some of you many wish to skip some of the technical stuff in it.
Extracts of ‘Eclipse’ were also used in a series of articles its
author Duncan Steel wrote for ‘Sky & Space’ ..
+ Conjunction = apparent close approaches of planets in the sky.
Apparently, around the time of Christs’ birth, Venus and Jupiter -
the two brightest planets - appeared to get so close together in the
sky they may have, effectively, breifly merged as far as the unaided
eye sees. This happened in the constellation of Piscies which was
considered by astrologers to be specially significant for the Jews
and is thus one leading scientifically speculated explanation for
the ‘Christmas star’ guiding the three wise men. Of course Chris
DeBurgh had another more SF take on it with his “A Spaceman came
Travelling” song … and literal Christians have another supernatural
explanation again. Without a time machine, we’ll most likely never
know for sure…
December 26th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Yiii-ya-yii-a that was a long post eh?
Correction to it :
My understanding is the whole of Christmas was a synthesis of several different group’s customs and ideas starting with the Roman festival called ‘Saturnalia’ which honoured Rome’s agricultural god Saturn (as in the planet - Greek version = Uranus?) with feasting, drinking and gift-giving. It was also a celebration of the winter solstice. (For Northern hemisphere natch.)
Anyway, distilled down to ashort version, lighten up Phil - it doesn’t hurt to guess.
There are a number of different possibilities for explaining the Xmas star :
1) Planetary Conjunction(s)
2) bright comet
3) Stellar-related variable phenomena : Novae, superovae & variables
(NB. Don’t necs. hafta be bright -if Magi sufficnetly observant anything odd may ctach their eyes …?)
4) Geosynch. satellite over Bethlehem .. (But how it’d get there is another story!)
5) Aliens / angels a la “A Spaceman Came Travelling” Xmas carol-y song by Chris deBurgh …
6) Supernatural : Gods work miracle! (Well who knows … soem believe it. others refuse to. Their choice either way.)
7) mistranslation, corruption, misunderstanding or outright lie - basically BA’s bet - it didn’t happen.
The Scrooge’s explanation! No fun … & not really testable w/o atime machine.
Personally I’d reckon the first option is most likely but all have some slim (very, very slim in some options) chance of being correct.
Asfor Christmas - lets just let each clebrate itas tehychoose without tr