# Star of Bethlehem **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 13, 2000, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638 "2000-03-13T19:20:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![solomani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@solomani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solomani)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/21 "2005-05-05T23:41:32Z")
> [@RM Mentock](#): > > Just out of curiosity, what do you find bad about mine above, from whoa five years ago. Sounds fairly reasonable but how would a supernova appear over a stable (or at least seem to?) ---
**Author:** ![solomani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@solomani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solomani)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/22 "2005-05-05T23:44:08Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > I agree. It goes beyond reasonable doubt that the Wise Men were astrologers “reading” the Heavens. > > Maybe the astrologers were angels in disguise. Or, maybe God created Uranus on the spot just for the astrologers. > > Then again, maybe not. > > Believe what you wish. I will stick to facts and truth. > > r~ LOL. Facts? Truths? What facts? What truths? Were you there? You have observational data to backup your facts and truth? No you don’t (and neither do I). So please don’t attempt to take the high ground of “science” when there is no proof either way. We only have a second hand account possibly based on an eyewitness account (Jospeh? Mary?) written 30+ years after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![solomani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@solomani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solomani)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/23 "2005-05-05T23:45:22Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > I suppose you’d discount the theory that Joseph set of a flare? Can flares last months possibly years? (however long it took the wise men to get there). Apart from that minor flaw its a solid theory 😉 ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/24 "2005-05-06T04:25:46Z")
> [@solomani](#): > > LOL. Facts? Truths? What facts? What truths? Whoa. Flashback. Isn’t that what Pontius Pilate said in “Jesus Christ Superstar?” 🙂 Sorry, continue. > [@solomani](#): > > Were you there? You have observational data to backup your facts and truth? No you don’t (and neither do I). So please don’t attempt to take the high ground of “science” when there is no proof either way. We only have a second hand account possibly based on an eyewitness account (Jospeh? Mary?) written 30+ years after the fact. I did not say proof positive, I said beyond a _reasonable_ doubt. My memory and understanding is that the evidence found in archaeology and history fit my description. In my book, evidence carries more weight than second hand accounts. Again, that is what my reason tells me. At Your Service r~ ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/25 "2005-05-06T15:51:39Z")
Note that the concept of something appearing in the heavens (read: celestial, like the moon or beyond) and yet being “over the manger” is inherently contradictory. Even something as close as the moon isn’t “over the manger” any more than it’s over anything else, and it certainly wouldn’t be able to “lead” people to any specific location. So, might there have been a supernova, comet, or similar brightness? Sure. Was it “over the manger”? Only in the sense that it was over everything else, too. Hence, my theory of a flare is actually the most likely, if you accept the narratives as literal truth. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/26 "2005-05-06T20:40:10Z")
> [@solomani](#): > > Sounds fairly reasonable but how would a supernova appear over a stable (or at least seem to?) you must’ve missed that part 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/27 "2005-05-06T23:13:37Z")
I’ve always been a bit puzzled about the “east” thing. It says the wise men came “from the east” (vs.1) and then it says they saw his “star in the east”. To me, that sounds like they saw the star in their eastern sky, and then followed it west to find Jesus. Peculiar and illogical, unless I’m misreading. Would “for we have seen his star in the east” maybe have been better translated “for while we were in our own country [to the east], we saw his star”? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/28 "2005-05-07T02:55:06Z")
It is ambiguous that way, but it gets even worse. From what I’ve heard, the actual phrase in the original could also be translated as “For we saw his star at its heliacal rising”. The heliacal rising of a celestial body is when it first becomes visible shortly before dawn, after having been drowned out by the glare of the Sun for some time. It was a very important phenomenon for ancient astronomers; for instance, the heliacal rising of Sirius towards the end of summer was the signal to the Egyptians warning of the annual Nile floods. ---
**Author:** ![Grimpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/82dd89/32.png) [@Grimpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grimpen)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/29 "2005-05-07T19:42:39Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Note that the concept of something appearing in the heavens (read: celestial, like the moon or beyond) and yet being “over the manger” is inherently contradictory. Even something as close as the moon isn’t “over the manger” any more than it’s over anything else, and it certainly wouldn’t be able to “lead” people to any specific location. Just to confuse matters: the text is, of course, written using the current vocabulary of Koine Greek, and even technical writers of the period could be rather wobbly. (For example, Hellenistic astronomical writers recorded Sirius as being red. Actually going out and looking at the object in question apparently wasn’t a priority…) Consequently, I wouldn’t be inclined to press any of the description very hard. All I’d be confident in concluding would be that (according to the narrative) the magi saw something in the sky, they were inclined to think it had to do with Judea, and that with an additional clue from Herod’s scribes they got to the right place. As for where exactly the object was during all of this: I doubt if Matthew cared. Or had the vocabulary available to give a precise description. On a point of detail: while Matthew has the magi coming to Bethlehem, he doesn’t refer to the manger. That’s Luke. There’s no real indication how quickly after the birth Matthew understands the magi to have got there; the only clue is that Herod has all the boy babies under two years old killed, but (given Herod) that doesn’t say much about how old Jesus would have been at the time. Only that there’s nothing in the text incompatible with the magi arriving more than a year after his birth. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/30 "2005-05-08T16:46:02Z")
> [@Phase42](#): > > I’ve always been a bit puzzled about the “east” thing. It says the wise men came “from the east” (vs.1) and then it says they saw his “star in the east”. To me, that sounds like they saw the star in their eastern sky, and then followed it west to find Jesus. Peculiar and illogical, unless I’m misreading. Would “for we have seen his star in the east” maybe have been better translated “for while we were in our own country [to the east], we saw his star”? David Hughes’s old _The Star of Bethlehem Mystery_ (1979), which argues that it was the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, says that the consensus is that this ambiguity in the Authorised Version is due to the translation. Apparently the phrase is _en te anatole_ and is singular, which usually wouldn’t refer to the geographical east. > [@Chronos](#): > > It is ambiguous that way, but it gets even worse. From what I’ve heard, the actual phrase in the original could also be translated as “For we saw his star at its heliacal rising”. Hughes cites a 1977 paper - which I haven’t read - by David Clark, John Parkinson and F. Richard Stephenson (_Quarterly Journal of the RAS_, 18, 443) on this point. Their argument is that _anatole_ indeed had a technical meaning, but it refers to the acronychal rising. This is the star rising in the east just as the Sun sets in the west. Where the heliacal rising comes in in their reading is in the later verse “Then Herod, when he privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.” The verb _phainesthai_, to appear, apparently refers to it. Personally though, I tend to agree with **Grimpen**. Trying to construct any astronomical explanation is an interesting enough intellectual game, but it’s probably reading far too much into what’s inescapably a rather brief text. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/31 "2005-05-09T20:47:55Z")
> [@Phase42](#): > > I’ve always been a bit puzzled about the “east” thing. It says the wise men came “from the east” (vs.1) and then it says they saw his “star in the east”. To me, that sounds like they saw the star in their eastern sky, and then followed it west to find Jesus. Peculiar and illogical, unless I’m misreading. Would “for we have seen his star in the east” maybe have been better translated “for while we were in our own country [to the east], we saw his star”? From [“Star of Bethlehem”, by Micheal Molnar](http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/) (a current astronomer who is thinking like an astrologer from 2000 years ago): > [@](#): > > _What was the Star?_ > On April 17, 6 BC two years before King Herod died **Jupiter emerged in the east as a morning star in the sign of the Jews, Aries the Ram. The account in Matthew refers twice to the Star being in the east with good reasons**. When the royal star of Zeus, the planet Jupiter, was in the east this was the most powerful time to confer kingships. Furthermore, the Sun was in Aries where it is exalted. And the Moon was in very close conjunction with Jupiter in Aries. Modern calculations suggest that this was close enough to be an occultation (eclipse). But the Sun’s glare would have hidden that event. Saturn was also present which meant that the three rulers of Aries’ trine (Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn) were present in Aries. Saturn and Jupiter were said to be attendants on the rising Sun, another regal aspect for astrologers. By modern expectations this is trivial, but for ancient stargazers this configuration was truly awesome. (p. 96-101) > > \*Was the Star the lunar eclipse (occultation) of Jupiter? \* The lunar occulation of Jupiter on April 17, 6 BC was just one of several astrological conditions pointing to a king’s birth. The greatness of a ruler or king was said to depend on the number of regal astrological effects at the time of birth. This distinguished, say, a low level governor from an emperor. Knowing that lunar conjunctions (close approaches) with Jupiter were one condition for a king’s birth, I looked for the closest conjunctions, namely occultations in the time frame biblical scholars claim as likely for the birth of Jesus. \*\*I quickly focused on the occultation of April 17, 6 BC after realizing that Jupiter was also “in the east” in Aries. “In the east” is mentioned twice by Matthew because astrologers such as the Magi said this was the most important time for Jupiter to produce future kings. \*\* Moreover, the Moon’s incredible nearness to Jupiter amplified that power. Keep in mind that astrologers of Roman times were making crude calculations of planetary positions to create horoscopes, but they could not predict eclipses or occultations as we now can. However, they could estimate when these were likely. But keep in mind that the occultation was the key to finding this incredible day which has many important conditions pointing to the birth of not just a king, but a great king in Judea. (p. 64-84) > > _How did the Star lead the Wise Men to Bethlehem?_ > **The Star, namely Jupiter in the east, was in Aries the Ram. This along with the other important astrological aspects showed astrologers that a king was born in Judea, Samaria, Palestine, Idumea, or Coele Syria**. Not knowing the precise location they went to the capital of these lands which was Jerusalem. King Herod’s advisors told the Magi that the prophecy said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So, the Magi went there. (p. 46-47) > > \*Did the Star sit above the infant Jesus? \* > Not unless it was a miraculous star. **Matthew reports that the star went before and stood over the child, which is how the Greek interprets into English. But this does not make any realistic sense for any normal object in the sky. However, if the message of this passage is astrological, (that is, Matthew did not understand Greek astrological terminology) the intended meaning of these Greek words describes retrograde motion and stationing, respectively**. As it turns out, these were important secondary regal conditions that happened later in 6 BC. See p. 89-93 for a thorough discussion of these concepts. Although the star in the east was Jupiter, they traveled (followed) west to Judea, since Jupiter was in Aries, the zodiac sign for Judea. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/32 "2005-05-09T23:35:42Z")
Thanks **Yeticus** - good stuff there. I think I might order that book 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/33 "2005-05-10T02:06:40Z")
If retrograde motion of Jupiter is a regal sign, it’s a pretty weak one. Jupiter goes into retrograde motion nearly once a year, as any ancient astrologer could have told you. In fact, they could even have told you that it was bound to happen about six months after Jupiter played the role of morning star. So seeing Jupiter retrograde six months later would add absolutely no weight to the previous prediction. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/34 "2005-05-10T02:16:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If retrograde motion of Jupiter is a regal sign, it’s a pretty weak one. Jupiter goes into retrograde motion nearly once a year, as any ancient astrologer could have told you. In fact, they could even have told you that it was bound to happen about six months after Jupiter played the role of morning star. So seeing Jupiter retrograde six months later would add absolutely no weight to the previous prediction. Yep. And how the Magi would find Jesus is unanswed. Did they ask passers by “could you please point out where we may find the infant son of God?” ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/35 "2005-05-10T11:26:01Z")
I presume I don’t really need to remind everyone that all these theories are purely speculative. We have no idea what year Jesus was actually born (dates range from about 6 BC to about 3 AD), let alone what month. Within a ten year period, someone finds an astronomical analogy that looks interesting and then says, Oh, yeah, that must be IT! ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/36 "2005-05-10T11:29:05Z")
> [@RM Mentock](#): > > Pisces is regarded as the zodiacal sign where evidence of the messiah will appear. > [@Yeticus Rex (paraphrasing Molnar)](#): > > …Aries, the zodiac sign for Judea. And, as **Euty** noted in the Staff Report, ‘Some say Leo (the lion) was associated astrologically with the house of Judah, from which the messiah was supposed to arise.’ So which is it - Pisces, Aries or Leo? With a quarter of Zodiac signs having been identified as the crucial one, that’s a lot of wiggle room. Pick any astrological ‘event’ and there’ll be a one-in-four chance that it took place in a sign that someone has already claimed was significant. Molnar’s real challenge to the previous theories is not that he’s found a better astrological match (‘better’ in such matters will always be a bit subjective), but rather his claim that others misidentified which Zodiac sign was the one that mattered. And then there’s the possibility that ancient ideas about the meaning of the Zodiac signs were so varied and flexible - to say nothing of modern interpretations of them - that, with sufficient ingenuity, you can come up with any match you want. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/37 "2005-05-10T13:03:02Z")
[QUOTE=APB] So which is it - Pisces, Aries or Leo? QUOTE] Molnar is the only one advocating Aries, so far as I know, and even Euty mentions Pisces–in fact, the reference to Leo was in the paragraph describing the appearance of Halley’s comet in Gemini, with its head towards Leo. Pisces was the one used by Kepler I believe ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/38 "2005-05-10T14:03:06Z")
> [@RM Mentock](#): > > Pisces was the one used by Kepler I believe And you think that that, by itself, is a reason to accept the idea at face value? In fact, Kepler took it from Isaac Abarbanel, but tracing the claim that Pisces=the Messiah back to the fifteenth century proves nothing about what had been thought 1,500 years before then. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/39 "2005-05-10T18:01:26Z")
> [@APB](#): > > And you think that that, by itself, is a reason to accept the idea at face value? ?? > [@](#): > > In fact, Kepler took it from Isaac Abarbanel, Can you prove that? ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638/40 "2005-05-10T19:05:43Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > I presume I don’t really need to remind everyone that all these theories are purely speculative. We have no idea what year Jesus was actually born (dates range from about 6 BC to about 3 AD), let alone what month. Within a ten year period, someone finds an astronomical analogy that looks interesting and then says, Oh, yeah, that must be IT! Duly noted by me and Molnar…although it is fun to sleuth it. > [@Molnar](#): > > _Do you believe Jesus was born under the Star?_ > No one knows that answer. The birth of Jesus was never recorded. However, the evidence is that the early Christians did believe Jesus was born under the Star because the prophecy of Balaam (Num. 24:17) said the Messiah would be revealed by a regal Star. (p. 124) > [@Chronos](#): > > If retrograde motion of Jupiter is a regal sign, it’s a pretty weak one. Jupiter goes into retrograde motion nearly once a year, as any ancient astrologer could have told you. In fact, they could even have told you that it was bound to happen about six months after Jupiter played the role of morning star. So seeing Jupiter retrograde six months later would add absolutely no weight to the previous prediction. > [@Molnar](#): > > \*Was the Star the lunar eclipse (occultation) of Jupiter? \* > The lunar occulation of Jupiter on April 17, 6 BC was just one of several astrological conditions pointing to a king’s birth. The greatness of a ruler or king was said to depend on the number of regal astrological effects at the time of birth. This distinguished, say, a low level governor from an emperor. Knowing that lunar conjunctions (close approaches) with Jupiter were one condition for a king’s birth, I looked for the closest conjunctions, namely occultations in the time frame biblical scholars claim as likely for the birth of Jesus. I quickly focused on the occultation of April 17, 6 BC after realizing that Jupiter was also “in the east” in Aries. **“In the east” is mentioned twice by Matthew because astrologers such as the Magi said this was the most important time for Jupiter to produce future kings. Moreover, the Moon’s incredible nearness to Jupiter amplified that power**. Keep in mind that astrologers of Roman times were making crude calculations of planetary positions to create horoscopes, but they could not predict eclipses or occultations as we now can. However, they could estimate when these were likely. **But keep in mind that the occultation was the key to finding this incredible day which has many important conditions pointing to the birth of not just a king, but a great king in Judea.** (p. 64-84) and… > [@](#): > > _How rare was the Star of Bethlehem?_ > The conditions of April 17, 6 BC never repeat perfectly, but the core elements as I discuss on pages 17, 26, 71, and 101-102 have a period of 60 years. By modern expectations this seems short, but it was very long for ancient times – a once in a lifetime occurrence. **Keep in mind that this does not mean everything aligned every sixty years to produce a powerful regal condition; the planet Mars was notorious for ruining great fortunes.** The other planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars and Saturn) were also in favorable positions as well as Jupiter being possibly occulted by the Moon. I ran my Sky 6 software for that day and the planets were in about 40-50 degree arc (from left to right, from memory) Mars, Venus, Mercury, Sun, Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn. It wasn’t just Jupiter by itself, it was all of the planets in the right order, including the Sun and Moon in the right constellation(s) that the Magi took note of. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-of-bethlehem/1638.md?page=3)