The Great Christ Comet (15 page)

As Martin saw it, the celestial events relating to the King Planet, the Messiah's Star, and Judea's constellation alluded strongly to Biblical traditions concerning the Messiah.

In addition to the triple occultation, Martin highlighted that on June 17, 2 BC, Jupiter reunited with Venus in Leo, seeming to most naked-eye observers in Bab­ylon to form a single star. Since this was visible over the western horizon, it was natural for
the Magi to interpret it as pointing toward Judea.
97

Then on August 27 of 2 BC, during a massing of Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter in Leo, Jupiter and Mars had a conjunction.
98
Martin speculated that this phenomenon may have seemed to the Magi to announce the commencement of wars on the earth and that this would have been understood by them in connection with Old Testament prophecies that the messianic era would be ushered in by a cataclysmic war.
99

For Martin, the Star of Bethlehem was Jupiter.
100
He suggested that on December 25 of 2 BC the King Planet, as it began a retrograde phase, seemed to pause in the belly of Virgo, the celestial maiden.
101
This apparent cessation of movement, according to Martin, would have been perceived to be astrologically significant.
102
Moreover, on that date, when the Magi, now in Judea, were observing the sky in the run-up to sunrise, Jupiter was culminating almost 70 degrees over the horizon in the south. Martin maintained that it is to this that Matthew was referring when he reported that the Star went before the Magi and then stood over the place where the child was (Matt. 2:9).
103
According to Martin, Jesus was born on September 11, 3 BC, when the Sun “clothed” Virgo and the Moon was under her feet (Rev. 12:1–2).
104

Frederick A. Larson, an attorney in the United States, has recently popularized a very similar theory in a DVD called
The Star of Bethlehem
.
105
The major difference is that what Martin regarded as the moment of the birth of Jesus, Larson views as the moment of the conception.

As enthralling as the adventures of Jupiter in 3–2 BC were, the hypothesis of Martin, and Larson, must be rejected for a number of reasons.

First, the whole hypothesis rests on a very dubious redating of Herod's death to 1 BC. We have already seen some of the shortcomings of this chronological revisionism. For one thing, coins minted in Jerusalem by Herod's sons make it clear that they began their reigns in 4 BC.

Second, Matthew 2:9b strongly suggests that the Star was observed to stand over a particular house, not the town as a whole, leading the Magi to the exact place where the child was. Advocates of the 3–2 BC hypothesis are unable to offer a plausible explanation of what Matthew describes.

The Star's “standing” could not refer to Jupiter becoming stationary relative to the fixed stars immediately before beginning retrograde motion, because that is not detectable by the human eye in the short space of a few hours. Moreover, if the planet's becoming stationary were in Matthew's mind, that would mean that the Star's going in advance of the Magi, leading them forward, must refer to the movement of the planet relative to the fixed stars in the hours prior to its becoming stationary. But Jupiter's movement relative to the fixed stars during the last hours before it paused would have been negligible and similarly impossible to perceive visually.

At the same time, it should be realized that the Magi would have known well in advance about Jupiter's movements and would hardly have elected to base their itinerary on this.
106

Third, it is peculiar that Martin identifies Jupiter as the Star of the Messiah, but regards the celestial event marking his birth as having
nothing to do with Jupiter. The celestial event marking Jesus's birth was, Martin claims, simply the Sun clothing Virgo while the Moon was under her feet (three days before the first of the three Jupiter-Regulus occultations).
107
The Gospel account, however, strongly connects the Star itself with the birth of the Messiah.
108

Fourth, this theory is unable to offer a plausible chronology of events. According to Martin, the Magi saw the sign marking the Messiah's birth on September 11, 3 BC, and yet delayed departing for Judea more than 9 months until, after all three Jupiter-Regulus occultations, the King Planet had a conjunction with Venus on June 17 of 2 BC; or 11½ months, until the massing of planets on August 27, 2 BC! And then it took them 4 or 6½ months to travel there!

Fifth and most important, this hypothesis's interpretation of Jupiter's movements in 3–2 BC is not consistent with ancient astrological principles. For example, no magus would have regarded Leo as the constellation or sign of Judea, nor Regulus as the Messiah's star. Moreover, there is no basis for the claim that the movement of Jupiter relative to Regulus would have been paradigmed as “crowning.”
109

In spite of its recent increased popularity, therefore, the 3–2 BC hypothesis can be safely discarded.

Supernatural Phenomenon

Many have assumed that the Star was miraculous in nature (at least as far as Matthew was concerned)
110
or merely a group visionary experience of the Magi.
111
Since the Star was, according to these hypotheses, a one-off phenomenon, there is no way that astronomical investigation in the twenty-first century could expect to make any progress in the quest for the Star.

The miraculous and visionary views are attractive since they can, of course, explain much of the data in Matthew's account, because their central claims, namely that there was a miraculous Star in 6–5 BC and that the Star was a subjective entity, are by their very nature impossible to falsify.
112
At the same time, they are positions of last resort
113
—that
is, they are adopted only because the description of the Star in Matthew 2:9 is deemed to go beyond what could realistically be expected of normal astronomical phenomena.
114
In this book we shall demonstrate that there is no need to resort to the miraculous or visionary views to explain the behavior of the Star. When the relevant Biblical texts are correctly interpreted, everything that is said about the Star is seen to cohere with established astronomical facts.

There are a few key problems with the miraculous view.

First, the astronomical language—specifically “star” and “rising”—used in Matthew 2 is misleading if an astronomical phenomenon is not in view. It should be noted that it is not just Matthew (v. 9) who refers to a “star” that “rose,” but the Eastern astronomers also (v. 2).

Second, the miraculous view leaves key questions unanswered: How did the Magi come to perceive that someone had been born, that he was King of the Jews, and that he was worthy of worship? The fact that the Magi traveled from their homeland to Judea in search of the Messiah suggests that they deduced from what the Star did prior to their departure that the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures had been born. However, the miraculous view cannot explain this without introducing elements that are absent from the narrative, such as that the Magi received other supernatural revelation too.

One version of the supernatural hypothesis is that “the guiding star was a guiding angel.”
115
According to this view, the apocryphal
Gospel of the Infancy
(in particular, chapter 7) was correct in its interpretation of Matthew's Star when it said, “In the same hour there appeared to them an angel in the form of that star which had before guided them on their journey; and they went away, following the guidance of its light, until they arrived in their own country.”
116

However, Matthew, even in the nativity narrative, is not shy about referring explicitly to angels when they are involved in events. For example, Matthew 1:20 reports that “an angel of the Lord appeared to [Joseph] in a dream” to command him to marry Mary (cf. v. 24). Further, 2:13 states that “an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream” to warn him to flee out of Herod's clutches to Egypt, and verses 19–20 record that “an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt” to call him to return to the land of Israel, because “those who sought the child's life are dead.” In light of these explicit references to angels, it is implausible that Matthew, in 2:1–12, would have consistently spoken of the guidance of an angel as that of a star.

The proposal that the Star was observable only by the Magi and was visionary in nature is likewise flawed and makes for a very implausible reading of the text. This position makes much of the shock of Herod and the people of Jerusalem when they heard what the Magi were saying, interpreting it as evidence that the Judeans had not themselves seen the Star.

A strong case can be mounted against the visionary view.

First, Matthew at no point suggests that the Star was a subjective phenomenon. Elsewhere when a visionary experience is in view, there are clear indications that this is the case. Note that Matthew makes explicit in verses 12, 13, and 19–20 when subjective revelatory phenomena played a part in the narrative (also 1:20). However, in 2:1–18 both the Magi and
the narrator speak of the Star as an objective phenomenon, rising (v. 2 [the Magi's words] and v. 9 [the narrator's words]), going before them (v. 9 [the narrator's words]), and standing over the house (v. 9 [the narrator's words]). Indeed the Star is described in terms as objective as the Magi's journey to Judea and their entry into the house where Jesus and Mary were.

Second, the reaction of Herod and the people of Jerusalem to the report of the Magi does not make a lot of sense if the phenomenon was merely subjective—why would the Jewish people have been troubled by a subjective report from pagan astrologers from a foreign land, probably Bab­ylon? And why would Herod have been convinced that the Magi were correct in claiming that the Messiah had been born? Besides, the text does not require that Herod and the people of Jerusalem were unaware of the Star prior to the Magi's arrival, but only that they did not appreciate its messianic significance.

We maintain, then, that the miraculous and visionary hypotheses are, by their very nature, positions of last resort that leave key questions unanswered. Moreover, they cannot explain satisfactorily all the data in the text. Matthew 2:1–12 strongly pushes the reader to accept that the Star was a literal and objective astronomical phenomenon that coincided with the birth of Jesus.

Mythical (or Midrashic) Hypothesis

Many scholars, including some astronomers and many liberal (as well as a number of conservative) theologians, do not accept Matthew's account of the Star as literally true; they do not believe that the birth of Jesus was really attended by an astronomical marvel.
117

Cullen states that Matthew 2:1–12's narrative concerning the Magi and the Star can with confidence be categorized as mythical in nature.
118
This is a historical and literary judgment regarding Matthew's Gospel.

Some New Testament scholars are sympathetic to this view.

For example, Raymond E. Brown rejected the historical veracity of the account on the ground that it was marked by “intrinsic unlikelihoods. A star that rose in the East, appeared over Jerusalem, turned south to Bethlehem, and then came to rest over a house would have constituted a celestial phenomenon unparalleled in astronomical history; yet it received no notice in the records of the times.”
119

In addition, Ulrich Luz has claimed that the Magi story as a whole is historically improbable.
120
The narrative, he maintains, “does not conform to the laws of historical probability. The desperate questions of the interpreters demonstrate this: Why did Herod not at least send a spy along with the Magi? How could the whole population of Jerusalem, the scribes, and the unpopular King Herod be perplexed by the coming of the Messiah? The star also is not described realistically, i.e., as astronomically plausible.”
121

It is not uncommon for Matthew's infancy
narrative to be labeled “midrash” or “creative historiography.”
122

Obviously, if the cynicism of such theologians is justified, then the quest to identify the historical celestial event witnessed by the Magi is doomed to miserable failure.

However, the skepticism is unwarranted. We have already seen that the Gospels are ancient Greco-Roman biographies that seek to tell the story of Jesus in a historically faithful way, based on sources deemed reliable, and that the story of the Magi was regarded by Matthew as true and has strong historical credentials.
123
But here it is important to say two things in response to the claim that the account of the Magi and the Star in Matthew 2:1–18 is mythical.

First, the claim rests on astronomical ignorance. As this study will demonstrate, every element in Matthew's description of the behavior of the Star is consistent with established astronomical facts. We must appreciate that it was normal in antiquity to describe celestial phenomena from the vantage point of an Earth-bound observer. Even today, when an astronomer speaks of a Leonid meteor shower, he does so because the meteors seem to the human observer to radiate from the constellation Leo. Likewise, in the ancient world, astronomical sights could be described observationally. Therefore when we read of the Star moving in advance of the Magi to the place where Jesus was and indeed standing over it, this language almost certainly reflects the observational perspective of the Magi.

At the same time, while I will maintain that the astronomical phenomenon known as the Star of Bethlehem can be identified, were I unable to do so, this would certainly not justify cynicism regarding Matthew's account. The Star might conceivably have been a rare astronomical event with which modern astronomers are as yet unfamiliar.
124