What Was the "Christmas Star"? When Can You See It?
Was the Star of Bethlehem a real astronomical object? Many religious scholars believe the bright star never existed as a physical object. Instead, when the account was written fifty years after Christ鈥檚 death, the star was meant as an astrological omen.
I take both religion and science seriously. In and of itself, the mixing of science and religion is shaky, but it can be helpful in specific cases; science should be present whenever it can be helpful. When the Shroud of Turin controversy raged, the use of Carbon-14 dating provided an unambiguous answer: The cloth that once supposedly covered the just-crucified body of Jesus proved to be less than a thousand years old. It wasn鈥檛 the genuine shroud but a hoax from the Middle Ages.
The Christmas Star is a different story. It鈥檚 not meant to be proven through science. You don鈥檛 need some scientific explanation for the Star. You have faith, or you don鈥檛.
Read Next
So, when astronomers have their Star of Bethlehem science show at the planetarium, it really doesn鈥檛 serve science or faith. Every backyard astronomer knows you can鈥檛 get anywhere by following something in the sky. Earth鈥檚 rotation quickly makes the contents of the heavens change position. Whether planet or supernova, everything rises in the east, arcs rightward during the night, and sets in the west. You鈥檇 go in a giant semicircle if you followed any celestial object. Plus, no astronomical body can come to a screeching halt over Bethlehem or anywhere else.
The only place where objects don鈥檛 move is in the middle of the northern sky, where Polaris hangs motionless (learn how to use Polaris to navigate!). But that eliminates planets, which are never in the north, and besides, the Magi weren鈥檛 going north to get to Bethlehem, but southwest.
What Was the Star of Bethlehem?
So, what was this Star that, according to Matthew, 鈥淲ent before them, and stood above where the Christ child lay.鈥 Most religious leaders believe the bright star never existed as a physical object. Instead, when the account was written fifty years after Christ鈥檚 death, the star was meant as an omen or sign.
After all, great kings were accompanied by auspicious astrological configurations; presumably, Jesus should also have one. At that time, the sign of Aries was linked with Judea, and Jupiter was its ruling planet; the merging of those two, as occurred in the year 6 BC when some (but not most) scholars tag the Birth, would have been precisely the kind of prophetic omen that should accompany the coming of a Savior. A further case against its existence is simply that Luke, generally regarded as the most historically accurate of the gospels, never mentions there being any star.
In any case, astrology eventually fell into total disfavor with both the church and, later, with science, so that explanation is popular with neither. Another problem with bringing up astrology is that it suggests that astrologers were correct in foreseeing the Birth. Such tacit support for pseudoscience is the last thing educators want to impart, nor does it win approving nods from religious leaders.
On the other hand, sticking with strictly astronomical explanations (a comet, a conjunction, a supernova, etc.) is so scientifically wrong that many planetariums are uncomfortable with it. But it鈥檚 been running more or less continuously since the 1930s when it was first introduced. The public keeps coming, and, as one director explained to me, 鈥淲e鈥檙e just giving them what they want.鈥
A Miracle Is Outside Laws of Science
All this has nothing to do with religious faith. If you believe the Magi were led by an actual star, fine: Why not a star only the Wise Men could see?
After all, suggesting that some natural celestial object, such as a comet, just appeared at the right place and then just happened to stop and hover over the manger is already indistinguishable from a miracle. Why introduce a scientific 鈥渆xplanation鈥 that has to unfold entirely outside the laws of science?
Faith in the Miraculous
Again, I ask: Why bother offering a scientific 鈥渆xplanation鈥 that has to unfold outside the laws of science?
Religion is similarly mistreated because the search for the real Christmas Star suggests that faith in the miraculous is unnecessary because there鈥檚 some rational scientific explanation for the Star. In short, neither science nor religion is well served.
The silver lining in this yearly December exercise is a marvelous confirmation of why science and religion make strange bedfellows. Their marriage always produces odd offspring, and in this case, it鈥檚 twins: a planetarium show with fictitious astronomy plus the implication that faith in the miraculous is superfluous because there鈥檚 a logical explanation for everything.
No matter. And as far as the planetarium programs go鈥 They have become a holiday tradition, so we might as well sit back and enjoy!
Learn More
Bob Berman
ADVERTISEMENT
Brovo!!, You are right about so many celebrations coming from pagan roots鈥roud that you don鈥檛 just tickle ears with a nice Or so called harmless story !! Sadly most people still continue to celebrate even knowing that鈥ut the facts you share should make people think twice, it鈥檚 not harmless!
God and his Miracles are not logical.
You just Believe.
More importantly, the fact that Jupiter, Regulus, and Venus made a spectacular astrological show that the Wise Men would have instantly recognized confirms Providence, not all of astrology.
Signs in the sky are pre-ordained and spectacular astronomical events are different from the notion that EVERYONE is affected by the way the stars align at their birth.
That the sign the Magi would have followed actually existed is a miracle itself. Persians knew about Jewish scripture and were always watching the sky. The Star did not literally park over the place where the two year-old Christ-Child was present. It didn't need to do so. The Magi only needed to see it once to know that they needed to go and worship.
I guess this is what I was watching yesterday night; Mars: Mars 5:23 A.M. (mars moved faster than the full moon);
SE 10:08 A.M.
27掳 98% 2:52 P.M. Thanks Farmers 蜜桃恋人!!!
The Wise Men were, very probably, Persian "magi"--that is, mages. A mage, says dictionary.com, is a magician. That explains how they got from Persia to Bethlehem, on camels, in circa 12 days--they "skipped over" a lot of the intervening space by way of magic.
As for what they saw, why not a supernova? Or, as someone else has suggested, a conjunction of two bodies? Yes, we talk of the "Christmas star," but in those days the planets were considered stars. They were stars that moved ("...the star... went before them..."), but stars nevertheless.
THE MAGI DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DAY OF JESUS' BIRTH. THEY REACHED HIM ABOUT TWO YEARS LATER.
Very true! By carefully examining the gospel in Matthew you see that Jesus is now referred to as a young 鈥榗hild鈥 no longer an 鈥榠nfant鈥 as the previous verses state. And the verse states at this point they were living in a house, no longer a manger.
the simple answer to this riddle was a perfect alignment of 2 planets at their brightest pick making it look like one super bright star, just like we had last year...this phenomenon happen (according to the gentleman that wrote article last year) once every 2000+yrs. So i will say that it was more of likely what they saw...but if we want to be mystically religious about it it's that event last year mean a new messiah was born????
This every 2,000 year reoccurring phenomenon was the very first thought that I had, too. It was even being discussed and referred to by so many at the time as its being the Star of Bethlehem. So much so by so many, and with so few if any solid reasons given not to accept it, that they appeared to have finally settled the debates and arguments to the satisfaction of all. However, I suppose mystery is what keeps the magic and wonder of Christmas alive and well.
Science and religion certainly do belong together. True science is merely the discovery of the truths God established in the universe. Let us not confuse science with scientism.
