Username: 
Password: 
   
 Forgot Password
 
     

Go to fullsize image

The Star of Bethlehem

CHURCH POSITION

“Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising…” (Matthew 2:2)

"I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth from Jacob, A scepter shall rise from Israel ..." (Numbers 27:17)
SCHOLARS

"None of these explications would be very likely even if it could be assumed that the Infancy Gospels dealt with astronomically identifiable scientific facts, but the previous findings would make one feel doubtful in this respect. And what kind of a star, let alone conjunction of planets, could be followed from the Orient to Jerusalem, then for a few miles from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, where it would signal precisely the house among many houses where Jesus happened to be?" (Vermes, 2006, p. 94)
THE REALITY

The idea of a celebrity’s birth being announced by celestial events is not original to Jesus. Alexander, Augustus, and Abraham all had stars accompany their births, as did Buddha and Krishna. So why not Jesus?  If it were true, Halley’s comet was a good candidate for the celestial event, but the comet was seen in that area in 11 to 12 B.C. which is a little too early for Jesus’ birth. A better candidate is the 70+ day supernova observed by Chinese astronomers of the Han Dynasty in 5 B.C., yet we can’t be certain that this same star was seen in the region of Galilee. The best candidate was the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, in 6 B.C., first elaborated by a Sixteenth Century German astronomer, John Kepler in 1603. Apparently the two planets came into conjunction three times during that year: May 27, October 6, and December 1 (Fidler, 1993, p.169). The one that fits our hypothesis best (i.e., shepherds in the fields) is May 27.

 

The real problem with Jesus and the “Star of Bethlehem” is that mythology has come to associate the star with his birth, but in fact it is clear from Matthew (2: 1-16) that the wise men from the East followed the star two years after Jesus was born. This is why King Herod “killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years or under, according to the time he had learned from the wise men (Matthew 2:16).” This event, while listed in Matthew, has no corresponding mention in any of the histories of that period. Which isn’t to say that Herod wasn’t capable of such an act, but its omission questions the veracity of Matthew’s claim.

 

So the appearance of the star would be about 4 B.C., for which there is no known astronomical event. We do know, however, that the presence of a star illuminated the arrival of the Queen of Sheba, who bore among her gifts myrrh for King Solomon (1 Kings 10:1-13), and we may have here the origins of the Christmas star as the writers of Matthew once again try to tie Old testament stories into Jesus’ life.

 

In summary, it’s unlikely that there was a star heralding Jesus birth, and then hanging around Bethlehem for two years while the Magi sought Jesus out. Our only possible candidate, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, did not hang around long enough. In fact, for the writers of the Gospel of Matthew, “…stars were living beings, intelligent and powerful, exercising great impact on lands over which they move (Malina, 2001, p.104).” This means that the writers of Matthew were implying that the Magi were inspired by angels, rather than following an actual physical entity. Thus, our inability to find a physical entity which fulfills the demands of Matthew’s description is not a problem, since a physical entity was never truly meant.

02/05/2008 
EXPRESS YOURSELF
 
REVIEW SECTION

   Books

   Films

   TV

   Other
 
MOST COMMON ERRORS
     
READER'S FORUM    
Date:     2006-12-02 Username:   DanUnterbrink Helpful:   2 of 2
The birth of Jesus has three different dates according to the New Testament. Luke placed the date at 6 AD, at the census (Luke 2:1-3) and at 2 BC per the calculation of John the Baptist's arrival less thirty years (Luke 3:1 and 3:23). Matthew placed the date at the end of Herod the Great's reign, or from 9-4 BC. Obviously, there is a consistency problem with the Gospel accounts. However, most scholars come to the conclusion that Jesus was born in 9-4 BC. This dating is dependent on the "star of Bethlehem" story. The only other account of the "star of Bethlehem" comes from the Slavonic Josephus. This account placed the birth in the early years of Herod, around 25 BC. The "star of Bethlehem" may have been a Christian story, not an historical reality. This story may have had its origin in the Star Prophecy, where many Jews believed that a world ruler would come from Israel. (Josephus attributed the Star Prophecy to Vespasian.) In reality, the "star of Bethlehem" story has two possible dates. Most follow Matthew, who placed the time towards the end of Herod the Great's rule (9-4 BC). I follow the Slavonic Josephus, which dates this story about 20 years earlier, from 30-25 BC. The earlier dating has the following advantages: 1. According to Epiphanius, James, the brother of Jesus, died at the age of 96 in 62 AD. This would have yielded a birth date of 35 BC. This advanced age may be an exaggeration as the same church historian stated that James died a virgin. According to Paul, James was a married man. So, it is very possible that 96 years old is a slight stretch. However, James was probably a very old man at his death (80-96?). The birth of Jesus in 30-25 BC fits in quite nicely with James' age. 2. The Slavonic Josephus placed the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry at 6 AD, during the reign of Archelaus. This John was very fiery, the same as in the Gospels. However, the Slavonic version stated that John preached a nationalism identical to Judas the Galilean. The placement of the John passage was right before Josephus claimed that Judas the Galilean was a preacher different than all the others. Josephus also called Judas a wise man and a clever rabbi. (Josephus never said a word about Jesus!) 3. If Judas the Galilean was born about 25 BC, then he would have been 30 years old at the census uprising (6 AD and the introduction of John). At least, the earlier scenario about Jesus' (Judas the Galilean's) birth fits the other facts (James, John the Baptist and the age 30).
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-12-03 Username:   drj Helpful:   1 of 1
Hi Dan. Very interesting stuff. I tend to accept Matthew's date that Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, giving us a date prior to 4 BC. The star story, as noted above, is unreliable, and the John the Baptist dating is subject to when Tiberius reigned as co-regent or independently. I do agree with Slavonic Josephus on the dating of John, whom I believe was born about 10 B.C., making him a feistey teen in 6 AD, and making Jesus a few years his junior. The problem with dating Jesus to 30 BC is that it makes him a very old man by the time Pilate and Caiaphas come along. And the Jesus we know from the gospels seems too spry for a 60 year old.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-12-25 Username:   inca Helpful:   0 of 3
People should investigate TOTAL (rather than partial) ECLIPSE near Herod's death, that was around 1 or 2 B.C. The star behaved more like a UFO. God wouldn't send a star which goes from East to Jerusalem where it was Christ's main enemy, Herod and then the star stops there and then starts again leading the astrologers to Bethelem where the account says there was no baby no more living among animals but a BOY living in a HOUSE with his mother. Joseph is not even mentioned. The problem is people have thought Mathew and Luke are describing the same event. That UFO/star seems to be sent by God's enemy who wanted Herod to identify baby whereabouts. God needed to warn the astrologers not to get back to Herod. Herod himself did his calculations and not killed all baby-borns but specially the ones til 2 years old. That means the trip of the "star" took 2 years from East to Jerusalem and then standing STILL upon the kid's house with his mom. No supernova, no planets alignment, no Halley comet but a Satanic holographic sign to deceive astrologers and wanr Herod. In saying so I'm saying Christ was born about 2 B.C and died about 33 of our era.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-04-12 Username:   minas Helpful:   3 of 3
More than anything, the story about the star reveals the Matthew's ignorance of astronomy. Most people know that sailors "follow" the stars to find their way home if the night finds them in the open sea, but the stars only provide a sense of direction. It is not that sailors recognize the star that sits above their home port. Even if there was an astronomical phenomenon, the magi would be unable to follow it to find a town, let alone a barn. Now, if there was a barn pointing star, I am sure many other people would have noticed and some of them should have written something.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-04-13 Username:   rabbiray1 Helpful:   1 of 4
Sometimes this star is called the malka-megan(King Star) but there is nothing written about it so there is no information to be gotten on the subject of the King Star
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-05-14 Username:   rabbiray1 Helpful:   2 of 3
why marvel? Look it up for yourself and don't count on others to do your work for you
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-10-11 Username:   anorak Helpful:   3 of 5
The Star of Bethlehem (which translates to "House of Bread"...and also represents the constelation Virgo) is actually the star Sirius...the brightest star in the sky. On December 22, 23, 24 the SUN actually stops moving towards the southern hemisphere (ie. it rises at the same degree for THREE days). On December 25th, Sirius and the three stars of Orion's belt ("the Three Kings") line up at the exact point where the SUN rises one degree to the NORTH...signifying that the days will be getting longer. The Ancients feared the dark. The Egyptian god of the dark was called Set...as in Sun "Set". This is also the birth sequence of Mithra, Horus (as in "hours") and many other Saviour deities. There were no Magi's (funny, the bible never says that there was three anyway...so then where did it come from?) The Bible is THREE things: Sex, Stars, and 'Shrooms. Look it up.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-04 Username:   Rayman Helpful:   2 of 2
What about the astronomical event on April 17, six B.C. when Jupiter and our Moon eclipsed, creating the appearance of a bright star and a Babylon belief that a great king is to be born. That "star" began the journey for the Babylon magi (Persian priests). The documentary "Mystery of the Three Kings" and other credible sources claim this astronomical event to be 100%factual. To date, this event makes more sense than any other resource I have read and/or heard of. Furthmore, six B.C. adds up to a more definitive timeline for supporting the events following throughout Jesus' life. I disagree with Minas' comments on 2007-04-12. In 4-6 B.C., devoting your entire life's efforts (career) 24/7 was probably commonplace. I believe if the Babylon magi focused their efforts on something (as scholars with gifted intelligence), they could of found a missing "mite" buried below sea level in that barn you mentioned, if they were searching for it. To find a specific boy in Judea with an estimated birth date was probably not an easy task, but achievable. With a determination possessing the strength, courage, mindset and finances to support a journey that took several months one-way with unknown conditions...trust me, they found him! Peace ;-)
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-15 Username:   anorak Helpful:   3 of 4
If I remember correctly there was also an alignment of Mars and Venus in the year 7 BCE. I forget the exact date. FYI, Venus was also called the Morning Star since it rose just before the sun. It was also called the "Light Bringer" or Lucifer. The whole three kings and the star in the East tale was not exclusive to Christianity. Other saviour deities had the same life beginings, so the 6 BCE (or 7 BCE fort hat matter) had no real significance, other than it was the begining of the Age of Pisces (Jesus is the "Fisher-of-Men.") Rayman, I find it difficult to trust you that anybody found Jesus since he did not exist. There was no HISTORICAL data of him. Only a few people did mention something called the Cristos (The Anointed...as in sprinkled with holy oil) not JESUS. A lot of people say that Josephus was the most credible source.....but he stole a lot of his "first hand knowledge" from other texts. If you really want your noodle baked, Babylon used to called Sumer. Go find some of the ancient Sumerian texts and read all about the Annunaki.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
 
Sort This Forum By

o Date    o Username    o Helpfulness
Refer This Page to a Friend
POST YOUR COMMENT - You must sign in to post comment    
     
 
Home           Links Page            Feed Back            Dateline            News            References