Star of Bethlehem

[canadarocks]

Can someone help explain to me the thoughts of the bethlehem star. If there were a star in the night sky that one wanted to follow, you would follow it until it was directly over head. To determine the precise location on the earth's surface where the star would be directly over would be near impossible and you could only get to a rough position (i.e., not precise enough to find at a stable in Bethlehem).

Also, the stars in the night sky appear to rotate (i.e., earth rotates) during the night and the "star" would change position based on the time that the observer was watching.

So, if the wise men were following a star ("or a bottle more like" - LOB), there is no way that the star could lead them to anything. If there was a light that the wise men were following, it couldn't have been a star or any other astral body.

I wanted to know if others have used this type of reasoning when considering the Christmas myth.

Thanks

 

[Dancing David]

Can someone help explain to me the thoughts of the bethlehem star. If there were a star in the night sky that one wanted to follow, you would follow it until it was directly over head. To determine the precise location on the earth's surface where the star would be directly over would be near impossible and you could only get to a rough position (i.e., not precise enough to find at a stable in Bethlehem).

Also, the stars in the night sky appear to rotate (i.e., earth rotates) during the night and the "star" would change position based on the time that the observer was watching.

So, if the wise men were following a star ("or a bottle more like" - LOB), there is no way that the star could lead them to anything. If there was a light that the wise men were following, it couldn't have been a star or any other astral body.

I wanted to know if others have used this type of reasoning when considering the Christmas myth.

Thanks

The story that I have heard that makes the most sense is that there was an optical conjunction of jupiter and venus about four bc, and that the constellation it occured in directed the wise men to judea.

 

[l0rca]

The wise men were followers of the Mythra religion at that time. During that particular winter, they followed a star (or planet, boy am I reciting from hazy memory. Someone should come along with sources and all soon hopefully...) in hopes of finding their humanly-incarnated god, or one of their gods, possibly the head of them.

I'm unsure of the details (or lack of details) from there, but historians are quite positive that the Christians hijacked this story for the birth of Jesus.

 

[sophia8]

The Star of Bethlehem is generally thought to have been a visible conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn in the Pisces constellation in 7 - 6 BC. Astrology was used for divination puposes in Judea at that time, and the Pisces star grouping was considered to be very important for Isreal.
There are other theories, but that's the main one. This page has links that fully explain the various ideas here: http://www.griffithobs.org/StarofBethlehem.html

 

[jjramsey]

I'm unsure of the details (or lack of details) from there, but historians are quite positive that the Christians hijacked this story for the birth of Jesus.

It's not too certain who the Magi were supposed to be, or if whoever made them up gave a whole lot of thought to their religion--other than them being astrologers, of course. A few interesting, if slightly OT, blog posts from the NT Gateway, in chronological order:

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/12/ldemann-on-christmas.html
http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/12/response-to-mark-goodacre-and-stephen.html
http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/12/response-to-ldemann.html

 

[canadarocks]

I still don't understand how someone (the Maji) could follow a celestial object (be it a true star, conjection of planets, etc.) and decide that the place on the earths surface was at a manger in Bethlehem. My understanding is that the star was right over the manger in Bethlehem where the Christ child was born. Can anyone today say that they followed the planet Jupiter and it lead them to a certain location on earth. I'm not sure how one could possibly do this. The links that were provided (Thanks BTW) didn't really answer my questions. Probably not a big deal.

 

[sophia8]

I still don't understand how someone (the Maji) could follow a celestial object (be it a true star, conjection of planets, etc.) and decide that the place on the earths surface was at a manger in Bethlehem. My understanding is that the star was right over the manger in Bethlehem where the Christ child was born. Can anyone today say that they followed the planet Jupiter and it lead them to a certain location on earth. I'm not sure how one could possibly do this. The links that were provided (Thanks BTW) didn't really answer my questions. Probably not a big deal.

The actual details probably aren't meant to be taken literally. You have to remember that none of the New Testament was written during Jesus' lifetime, nor were any of the Gospels written by the Apostles. Matthew's gospel, in which the story of the Star appears, was probably written about 100AD. So Matthew's author was relaying third- or fourth-hand (at the least) accounts of Jesus' birth. So the stuff about the Star 'stopping' over the birthplace could well have been a case of Chinese whispers - a narrative conveyed by people who had no idea of what the original descriptions meant.
According to the account, the "Star" wasn't obvious, and had to be explained to Herod by the Magi. That alone indicates it was something like a conjunction, or a transit through a particular constellation.
The Magi were most probably Persian priests, skilled in the art of divination, expecially astrology. The movements of the visible planets, the brightest stars, eclipses and so on, all had meaning for them.
Sometimes planets appear to travel backwards in the sky - go 'retrograde'. When this happens, there is a period of a few nights when the planet seems to 'stop' in it's travels and stay in the same place. Astrologers have always considered this stationary time important; this could have been the 'stopping star' that was written about. Say, for instance that the planet Jupiter (signifying kingship) was stationary close to one of the four 'Royal' stars - Regulus, say - in an important constellation, the Magi would have viewed this as incredibly important.
Which direction would they have known to go in? Well, for divination purposes, the sky was seen then as a map of the known earth; for example, if an eclipse occurred in a certain part of the sky, it would bode ill for whatever country or tribe that was mirrored in that bit of the sky.
So, presumably, this Star was actually an important conjunction - or, likely, a series of conjunctions, transits, lunations and eclipses - in a part of the sky that signified Judea. (As I recall, the story has them having to stop and ask Herod about the where new-born King was, so they weren't lead directly to Bethlehem.) The magi astrologers 'read' the planets and the stars and followed them to the birthplace of the new King, in pretty much the same way that you or I would follow a map.
Hope that makes things a bit clearer.

 

[canadarocks]

Thanks for the more information. If the "Star" was a planet in retrograde, then as I approach Bethlehem from the east, I see the "Star" overhead. But if I approach Bethlehem from the west (sailing on the Med), then wouldn't the "Star" be behind me? Even if the "Star" is directly overhead, it wouldn't be in a few hours as the earth revolves on its axis (it would be more to the east).

I agree with several of the poster's comments (I think I remember some of the points that I read in Asimov's Guide to the Bible - A long but worthwhile book IMHO).

 

[sophia8]

Thanks for the more information. If the "Star" was a planet in retrograde, then as I approach Bethlehem from the east, I see the "Star" overhead. But if I approach Bethlehem from the west (sailing on the Med), then wouldn't the "Star" be behind me? Even if the "Star" is directly overhead, it wouldn't be in a few hours as the earth revolves on its axis (it would be more to the east).

As I said, the magi were almost certainly using the sky as a map, reading it as other types of augery-readers used entrails or thrown twigs, to tell them which part of the world this new 'king' was located in. They did not literally follow a celestial object (except perhaps Jupiter, as it slowly travelled the nighttime sky ahead of them; when it became stationary close to Venus or a star or soemthing, they probably guessed that they were in the right area).
The description of them "following a star" that was used by the writer of Matthew a century later was a misunderstanding of their methods.

 

[canadarocks]

Thanks for your patience Sophia8. Your explanation makes sense to me. The only object in the sky that I know that one can follow to a point on the earth (near the geographic north pole) is the North Star. Thanks again.

 

[Beth]

Thanks for asking the question canadarocks. I remember wondering about that as a small child in Sunday school. I haven't thought about it in years.

Sophia8, could an object in orbit around the earth appear to be stationary over one point? Thanks.

 

[sophia8]

Thanks for asking the question canadarocks. I remember wondering about that as a small child in Sunday school. I haven't thought about it in years.

Sophia8, could an object in orbit around the earth appear to be stationary over one point? Thanks.

Only if it was a satellite in geostationary orbit - orbiting at the same speed as the Earth spins.

 

[Beth]

Only if it was a satellite in geostationary orbit - orbiting at the same speed as the Earth spins.

Okay. Thanks for the information. That was one of the things I wondered about as a child.

 

[Beerina]

The story that I have heard that makes the most sense is that there was an optical conjunction of jupiter and venus about four bc, and that the constellation it occured in directed the wise men to judea.

Yes, but the problem still stands, star, comet, planetary conjunction, or otherwise: Following such a heavenly body is a silly, meaningless concept.

Maybe sea navigators had enough technological know-how to tell when a star was directly overhead (especially difficult if it's a new one), but the rotating of the Earth makes even that an idiotic concept.

The only "solution" is to suppose the star was just some kind of bright lightbulb placed a mile or two up, such that it could be "followed", combined with lowering it down, the nearer the three wise men came (as there'd be no way you could pinpoint directly "under it" when it was 2 miles up. Maybe you could come to the nearest block of buildings...if you were lucky.)

Of course, if the star lowered upon the approach of the three wise men, then they weren't necessarily that wise, since they needed help. Also, why wouldn't many others follow this, especially the local politicians, being very superstitious folks all!

This "follow the star" thing sounds like the Star Trek "holodeck", which sounds good until you start thinking about it, in which case it ends up being stripped of everything it seemed to be originally, in order to get the mechanics to work.*

I also recall a point made by a writer years ago that, if this is a miracle star, then you don't need a conjunction of planets -- indeed, that would only server to undermine the religious belief, not support it!





*Since the holodeck room is of finite size, the computer must "shift" the scenery as you walk through it. Furthermore, although constructing faux 3D items works well for binocular vision, for two or more people to see things "in the distance", the computer has to put up two binocular projectors in front of your eyes, and two in front of theirs -- "painting" the wall to look like something in the distance only works for one point of view at a time -- and even then does not truly work with respect to binocular vision. So, although you could create a 3D room to play around in, it could not simulate infinite expanse to one person, much less two or more, without turning it into a virtual reality system projecting right into your eyes, which brings us back to the room having to be stripped of its simple concept in order to achieve actual, mechanical viability.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, but the problem still stands, star, comet, planetary conjunction, or otherwise: Following such a heavenly body is a silly, meaningless concept.

Maybe sea navigators had enough technological know-how to tell when a star was directly overhead (especially difficult if it's a new one), but the rotating of the Earth makes even that an idiotic concept.

The only "solution" is to suppose the star was just some kind of bright lightbulb placed a mile or two up, such that it could be "followed", combined with lowering it down, the nearer the three wise men came (as there'd be no way you could pinpoint directly "under it" when it was 2 miles up. Maybe you could come to the nearest block of buildings...if you were lucky.)

Of course, if the star lowered upon the approach of the three wise men, then they weren't necessarily that wise, since they needed help. Also, why wouldn't many others follow this, especially the local politicians, being very superstitious folks all!

This "follow the star" thing sounds like the Star Trek "holodeck", which sounds good until you start thinking about it, in which case it ends up being stripped of everything it seemed to be originally, in order to get the mechanics to work.*

I also recall a point made by a writer years ago that, if this is a miracle star, then you don't need a conjunction of planets -- indeed, that would only server to undermine the religious belief, not support it!





*Since the holodeck room is of finite size, the computer must "shift" the scenery as you walk through it. Furthermore, although constructing faux 3D items works well for binocular vision, for two or more people to see things "in the distance", the computer has to put up two binocular projectors in front of your eyes, and two in front of theirs -- "painting" the wall to look like something in the distance only works for one point of view at a time -- and even then does not truly work with respect to binocular vision. So, although you could create a 3D room to play around in, it could not simulate infinite expanse to one person, much less two or more, without turning it into a virtual reality system projecting right into your eyes, which brings us back to the room having to be stripped of its simple concept in order to achieve actual, mechanical viability.

All quite true!

The point that I heard although my memory is suspect is that the constellation of taurus, or some such was the constellation that cooresponded to the nation of judea. And so when the conjunction occured in that constellation, the wise woos journeyed to judea, which evidently took about four to six years.
Maybe they crawled there.

The whole thing is some sort of myth, much like the military service of GWB.

My favorite criticism of astrology is that I am a virgo not a libra, my bio has an error, I was born october 24.

The sun was in the constellation virgo when i was born not libra. astrologer just ignore the procession of the equinox.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Can someone help explain to me the thoughts of the bethlehem star. If there were a star in the night sky that one wanted to follow, you would follow it until it was directly over head. To determine the precise location on the earth's surface where the star would be directly over would be near impossible and you could only get to a rough position (i.e., not precise enough to find at a stable in Bethlehem).

Also, the stars in the night sky appear to rotate (i.e., earth rotates) during the night and the "star" would change position based on the time that the observer was watching.

So, if the wise men were following a star ("or a bottle more like" - LOB), there is no way that the star could lead them to anything. If there was a light that the wise men were following, it couldn't have been a star or any other astral body.

I wanted to know if others have used this type of reasoning when considering the Christmas myth.

Interesting question. Note that Matthew does not state that the wise men "followed" the star. Here is the text from KJV:

Matt.2
[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.
[3] When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
[4] And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
[5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
[6] And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
[7] Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
[8] And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
[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.
[11] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

So we have wise men looking for the King of the Jews because they have seen his star “in the east”--or perhaps better translated as “in rising [with the Sun]”. For whatever reason, they go from the east to Jerusalem to look for him. Herod is surprised and troubled about these guys, so he calls in his head know-it-alls. They tell him the prophesy is that the Christ will be born in Bethlehem. (At least in KJV it is a little unclear whether this info comes from Herod’s priests or the wise men, but it seems to come from Herod’s priests.). Herod then questions the wise men on when this star appeared. So obviously none of Herod’s guy knew anything about the appearance of this star. Then he sends the wise guys to Bethlehem to find this child. He tells them to do find him so he can worship him, but we know he really just wants to kill him.

So, not only are Herod’s priests and scribes not aware of this star appearing, they apparently cannot see or follow it either. If they could, Herod would have held the wise men and sent his own guys to find the child. Instead, he sent the wise men to sort of root him out. So there wasn’t any glowing heavenly body that just anyone could follow—only certain wise men. These wise men were probably astrologers following astrology charts rather than glowing things in the sky.

This all makes sense until we get to the second half of Matt 2:9: “the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was”

OK, here’s where things stop making sense, and this is also the only place where the wise men could be said to “follow” the star. There are a number of translations and interpretations of this phrase. A very literal translation seems unlikely. The wise men were already going to Bethlehem. Bethlehem was a city, but not exactly like Los Angeles, or London, or something. A star over the child would have to be exactly over a house. Stars, comets, planets, etc. don’t do that. Even if there was some bright heavenly light that appeared directly over the exact birthplace, you would expect all sorts of people flocking to it to find out what is going on, not the least of which would be Herod’s goons. That didn’t happen.

The phrase could mean “the star came up before them, and set in its place when they stood over the child”. This would be a very loose translation, and probably not likely, but possible. So this could mean that when the wise men found Mary and the child was born, the star rose in the star chart to the exact position to mark the birth of the King of the Jews. The flexibility to arrive at this translation is probably too extensive to accept, but it is probably closer to the real meaning of the verse.

This seems to be another case of the details of a Bible story being irrelevant. The important point was the message of the story. The message of the story is that Jesus was the messiah, who was born in Bethlehem in accordance with the prophesies, and was recognized as the saviour by wise men even at his birth. The details about how stars work is irrelevant to the message.

In Luke, we have a very similar message; in fact a very similar story. Joseph and the pregnant Mary go to Bethlehem to be counted in a census. Mary gives birth. Some shepherds in the field are visited by angels and told that the Saviour is born in Bethlehem. So the shepherds went to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph and the child Jesus. The praise the child and spread the word. Why would God’s angels send the first message of the birth of his son the Saviour to some sheep herders wandering around at night?

See any similarities? Shepherds are given divine inspiration that the Saviour is born. Then they are told he is born in Bethlehem. They go to Bethlehem. They somehow find the child Jesus. They praise him.

In Matthew: Wise men form the east are given divine inspiration from a star that the Saviour is born. Then they are told he is born in Bethlehem. They go to Bethlehem. They somehow find the child Jesus. They praise him. Seems like the same story, with some details changed.

We also have some discrepancies for the latter part of the story. Matthew has the wise men learn of Herod’s treachery and fleeing the country and Joseph and Mary fleeing with Jesus to Egypt while Herod kills the children of Bethlehem. Luke discontinues the story of the shepherds and has Mary and Joseph making routine visits to Jerusalem. Both gospels relate Jesus to Nazareth, but in different ways. Matthew has Joseph and Mary move to Nazareth after Herod is dead. Luke has Joseph and Mary being from Nazareth and going to Bethlehem for a world-wide census.

There is no historical evidence of Matthew’s account of a mass child killing by Herod or of Luke’s account of a world-wide census by Caesar Augustus. And these stories do sound suspicious. Why would someone make them up?

We can see that in John 7:42 that Jesus gets into a bit of trouble for his claim of being Christ because the Scriptures say that Christ will come from Bethlehem. Jesus strove to fulfill the prophesies of the messiah. Luke and Matthew fulfilled those prophesies by placing Jesus’s birth at Bethlehem. And not just by say-so, but having wise men or divinely inspired shepherds from “out of the way lands” come and recognize not only his birth place but also his divine birth. The stories were probably cripped from somewhere else. Luke, not too hip on eastern magi, just went with some “shepherds”. Luke, with a bit more confidence, brought in the eastern magi. And even cleared up the bit about how they found the exact right house—they were following a star; so heck, the star was right over the place. In either case, the point is that Jesus was recognized at birth as the Saviour and fulfilled the prophesy of being born in Bethlehem.

So what about Nazareth? Luke says Joesph and family went from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Matthew is a bit more eye-opening, in stating that Joseph and family came back from Egypt and moved to Nazareth to fulfill a prophesy: “Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”

In conclusion, the stories of Jesus from the gospels seem intent on three things:

1) The divinity of Jesus was foretold (by a star seen by some eastern “wise men” and no one else, or by some shepherds wandering around at night seeing apparitions) , which fulfills a “messiah” prophesy
2) Jesus was born in Bethlehem, for one reason or another, which fulfills a “messiah” prophesy
3) Jesus was “from” Nazareth, either his parents were or he moved there, which fulfills a “messiah” prophesy

Squabbles about a half line of verse about wise men “following” and star is irrelevant. Don’t chase any astrological matches, because there aren’t any. No stars, planets, comets, cupids, donners, or blitzens. In all likelihood, there was no star, no wise men, no shepherds, and Jesus probably wasn’t born in or had any intrinsic relationship to Bethlehem or Nazareth.

 

[sophia8]

My favorite criticism of astrology is that I am a virgo not a libra, my bio has an error, I was born october 24.

The sun was in the constellation virgo when i was born not libra. astrologer just ignore the procession of the equinox.

That's precession, not procession. And astrologers do know about it. Some of them even use it - look up "Vedic Astrology" sometime.
<lecture mode>Western astrologers ignore precession because they don't need it. They don't place the planets in literal, visible constellations, but in sectors of the sky that happen to bear the names of the constellations that approximated to those sectors two or three millennia ago. It might be better if astrologers renamed these sectors - that would at least stop ignorant skeptics from constantly bringing up this "Don't you idiots know about precession?" canard - but tradition sticks.</lecture mode>

 

[dogjones]

Slightly off topic, but this thread has reminded me of Arthur C. Clarke's great story - "The Star".

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?endeca=1&isbn=0641597150&itm=10

 

[jjramsey]

2) Jesus was born in Bethlehem, for one reason or another, which fulfills a “messiah” prophesy
3) Jesus was “from” Nazareth, either his parents were or he moved there, which fulfills a “messiah” prophesy

Here I would partially disagree. There is Old Testament prophesy that clearly refers to a Bethlehem, and which could easily be taken as saying that the messiah would be from Bethlehem. The conflicts between Matthew and Luke and the internal problems in Luke itself point to attemps to mangle the facts to fit the prophecy.

By contrast, there is no OT prophecy mentioning Nazareth or Nazarene. There is prophecy about a "branch," and the Hebrew word for "branch" apparently has the same consonants as "Nazara" (a.k.a. Nazareth), which may what Matthew had in mind. If so, this is a stretch, and the kind of stretch that would indicate that Matthew was shoehorning the prophecy to fit the facts, rather than the other way round.

This would also explain why the birth narratives are complicated. The disciples want Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, but are stuck with him having Nazareth as a hometown, so they have to make up something to account for the long travels that Joseph and Mary would need to make for him to be born in the right place.

 

[Dancing David]

That's precession, not procession. And astrologers do know about it. Some of them even use it - look up "Vedic Astrology" sometime.
<lecture mode>Western astrologers ignore precession because they don't need it. They don't place the planets in literal, visible constellations, but in sectors of the sky that happen to bear the names of the constellations that approximated to those sectors two or three millennia ago. It might be better if astrologers renamed these sectors - that would at least stop ignorant skeptics from constantly bringing up this "Don't you idiots know about precession?" canard - but tradition sticks.</lecture mode>

oops, me and speeling.

Virgo is the last of the older constellations, I can't remeber who broke eight into twelve, the romans?

I am glad to know that you could use a Vedic ephemieris to navigate, it would have some use.

So it does not seem that the powers of astrology are related to the planets in the sky, but planets in an imaginary sky!