The Great Christ Comet (27 page)

Moreover, as we saw above, the fact that what most deeply impressed the Magi was what the Star did around the time of its heliacal rising is most naturally explained if it was a great comet that ventured very close to the Sun. Comets making close passes by the Sun are generally located within the zodiacal constellations at the time. So it would seem that the comet was in the zodiacal band of sky not only when it seemed to stand over the house where Jesus was in Bethlehem, but also some weeks earlier, when it was at perihelion. This would seem to confirm that the comet was indeed narrowly inclined to the ecliptic.

At the same time, a comet in the zodiacal band would have been perceived to have greater astrological significance than one outside it. The primary task of astrologers at the time of the birth of Jesus was formulating horoscopes based upon a person's zodiacal birth sign, that is, the zodiacal sign that was heliacally rising at the point of birth. Considering that the Magi interpreted what the Star did in the eastern sky as disclosing the birth of a great leader, it would obviously make most sense if the Star was within a zodiacal constellation/sign.

Along these same lines, the discovery of the comet by the Magi the best part of a year, or more, before perihelion, when the comet would have been very dim, is slightly easier to explain if the comet first appeared in an area of the sky in which the astrologers focused their observations—namely, the zodiacal region. It is striking that the surviving Bab­ylo­nian cometary records seem to reflect a heavy bias toward comets that appeared in the zodiacal band (they specifically mention comets in Scorpius [210 BC], Taurus and Sagittarius [164 BC], Libra [138 BC], and Aries [120 BC]).
68

For these reasons, it seems very likely that the cometary Star of Bethlehem was narrowly inclined to the ecliptic, like the planets and most asteroids and Jupiter-family comets. Since we have already made the case for the comet having a long period, we can with some confidence identify it as one of a relatively small group of such comets that are narrowly inclined to the ecliptic.
69

We can go further: the comet was probably also retrograde. This is because the only way a narrowly inclined comet can switch rapidly from the eastern to the western sky some weeks after its perihelion/heliacal rising is if it is at that point cutting through the Earth-Sun line. Only a retrograde comet can do this. That the Star proceeded to migrate to the southern evening sky confirms this.

Accordingly, the Star of Bethlehem was most likely a very large, intrinsically bright, narrowly inclined (and hence zodiacal), retrograde, long-period comet that appeared many months before its perihelion passage, rose heliacally in the eastern morning sky around the time of its perihelion, and then subsequently moved between the Sun and Earth, therefore switching to the western evening sky and then the southern evening sky.

Positive Interpretations of Comets in the Ancient World

One of the most peculiar features of recent works on the Star of Bethlehem is their tendency to dismiss cavalierly the comet hypothesis simply by lambasting the notion that the Star was Halley's Comet and/or by insisting that comets were always interpreted negatively in the ancient world. We have already dealt adequately with the former idea; because of how widely disseminated the latter claim is, we must give careful consideration to it now.

The charge that the comet hypothesis is implausible because it conflicts with the universally negative ancient interpretation of comets is made by many. Moore, for example, asserted that comets were always perceived to be unlucky and evil and therefore no magus would have interpreted one to be an omen of a royal birth.
70
Molnar likewise rejects the comet hypothesis on the basis that “The evidence . . . is strong that people of Roman times feared rather than welcomed comets. Long-haired stars were thought to be harbingers of disaster, usually the death of a king or an emperor.”
71
Similarly, P. A. H. Seymour dismisses the idea that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet on the ground that comets were always omens of death and disaster and never of happy things.
72
Sumners and Allen echo this indictment of the comet view: comets were “considered harbingers of evil. Their appearances foretold war, pestilence, or the death of a ruler, not the birth of a king.”
73

Regardless of how much this charge is repeated, it is over-simplistic and indeed profoundly misleading.

First, it stands to reason that, if a comet's apparition was perceived to be bad news by and for the ruling elite, it would naturally have been interpreted as good news by and for those who were eager to see regime change. As Humphreys puts it, “although a comet was regarded as a bad omen for the king who was about to die or for the side that was going to lose a war, equally a comet was regarded as a good omen heralding a new king or a major victory for those on the winning side.”
74
Tacitus wrote concerning AD 60 that “In the meantime a comet star blazed out. The opinion of the masses is that [a comet] portends revolution for kingdoms. Therefore, as if Nero had already been dethroned, [the masses] began to ask who should be chosen [as his replacement]. On the lips of everyone was the name Rubellius Plautus, who inherited his nobility from the Julian family through his mother” (Tacitus,
Ann
. 14.22).
75
This demonstrates that a comet's announcement of a change of regime was not necessarily perceived by all to be bad news. As we have already highlighted, the Star seen by the Magi in the east was interpreted negatively by Herod but positively by the Magi.

Second, there is some evidence that in the Greco-Roman world comets were sometimes regarded as being omens of good. Origen,
Contra Celsum
1.59, refers to a Stoic called Chaeremon (fl. AD 30–65), who in a work on comets insisted that comets sometimes appeared “when good things were to occur”
and proceeded to substantiate his claim with examples.
76

It is worth giving a few Greco-Roman examples of comets being perceived to be good omens.

Diodorus Siculus (16.66.3) and Plutarch (
Timoleon
8) refer to a bright light that attended Timoleon as he traveled to Sicily. If this was a comet,
77
it was a favorable one.

According to Justinus,
78
the birth and accession of Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus, in 135 or 134 BC and 120 or 119 BC respectively, were announced by cometary apparitions: “The future excellency of this man was foretold by celestial signs. For both in the year in which he was born and in the one in which he started to reign, on each occasion, a comet star blazed for 70 days in such a way that the entire sky appeared to be on fire.”
79
Interestingly, the Chinese
80
record comets in the years 135, 134 (possibly), 120, and 119 BC, and it is now widely accepted that Justinus's claims concerning comets at the time of Mithridates's birth and coronation are historically reliable.
81
Ramsey has argued convincingly that the 135 BC comet is the one that coincided with Mithridates's birth and that the 119 BC comet occurred at the time of his coronation.
82
In Justinus's account therefore we have excellent historical evidence of two cometary apparitions that were interpreted positively.
83

Pliny the Elder,
Natural History
2.23, records that in 44 BC, just under four decades before the Bethlehem Star, most probably late in July, a dramatic daytime comet occurred in the heavens in the time shortly after the death of Julius Caesar. Octavian, later called Caesar Augustus, regarded this comet as “auspicious.” In his
Vita
he wrote,

During the very time of these games of mine, a hairy star [comet] was seen during seven days, in the part of the heavens which is under the Great Bear. It rose in about the eleventh hour of the day, was very bright, and was conspicuous in all parts of the earth. The common people supposed the star to indicate that the soul of Caesar was admitted among the immortal gods; under which designation it was that the star was placed on the bust which was lately consecrated in the forum.
84

Pliny then comments that “This is what [Octavian] proclaimed in public, but, in secret, he rejoiced at this auspicious omen, interpreting it as produced for himself; and, to confess the truth, it really proved a salutary omen for the world at large.”
85

Cassius
Dio 45.7 states that “the majority . . . ascribed [the comet star] to Caesar, interpreting it to mean that he had become a god and had been included in the number of the stars” and that Octavian “took courage and set up in the temple of Venus a bronze statue of him with a star above his head.”
86
Octavian's initial nervousness about the comet makes plenty of sense—if the comet had been interpreted as a negative omen regarding his reign, it could have spelled serious trouble for him. However, the sources are clear that Octavian was delighted publicly and privately at the prodigious timing of the comet.

What Pliny and Cassius Dio give us here is a clear instance of a comet, indeed one of the most famous comets in history, having a happy association. Molnar, however, in his rejection of the idea that the Bethlehem Star was a comet, offers a different spin on what transpired: “Augustus Caesar, Julius Caesar's adopted son and political heir, knew that people would speculate that the new comet foretold his own death. . . . However, Augustus stemmed any thoughts about his demise by proclaiming that the comet was the wandering soul of Julius Caesar. Augustus proved to be one of history's greatest propagandists and spin-control artists: he commissioned coins and statues honoring the comet.”
87

However, this interpretation of the data by Molnar is overly cynical and contrary to the earliest and most reliable sources. That Octavian exploited the popular interpretation of the comet and used and developed it in his own propaganda is scarcely to be doubted (see
fig. 6.11
), but that is a long way from his inventing it. The evidence, such as we have, strongly suggests that this comet was almost universally embraced as a positive sign.

We conclude, then, that the great comet that appeared in the aftermath of Julius Caesar's death, less than four decades before the birth of Jesus, was perceived to be a resoundingly positive omen by most of the people of Rome and by Octavian himself.
88

Moreover, Seneca, in his
Natural History
7.17.2, speaks of a comet that appeared when Nero was emperor and “redeemed comets from their bad reputation,”
89
commenting that it was not the same one as had appeared in the aftermath of Julius Caesar's death in 44 BC. Seneca's statement reveals that there was a cometary apparition during the reign of Nero that, like the one in 44 BC, was broadly interpreted to be a decidedly positive omen,
so manifestly good indeed that it seemed to transform the reputation of comets.

In addition, Pseudo-Hegesippus 5.44.1 claimed that a comet near the start of the First Jewish War was interpreted by Jews as a sign that they would succeed in their bid for freedom from the Romans.

Comets therefore could be interpreted positively in the Greco-Roman world.
90
The widespread claim that they were always perceived to be negative omens must be laid to rest once and for all. Mercifully, some who advocate alternative hypotheses concerning the Star of Bethlehem, like Bulmer-Thomas, are willing to concede that, in view of the various examples of comets announcing good news in ancient literature, the argument that the Star of Bethlehem could not have been a comet because comets always had a negative significance has little force.
91

In addition, it is important to remember that the Biblical tradition regarding comets has a markedly positive dimension. As we have already seen, the Hebrew Scriptures portray the birth of the Messiah in terms of a comet in Numbers 24:17 and Isaiah 9:2. The fact that the Magi interpret the cometary sign as that of “the King of the Jews” and embark on a pilgrimage to worship him (Matt. 2:2) indicates that they interpreted what they saw in the heavens with reference to the messianic tradition reflected in the Hebrew Bible. This direct or indirect exposure to Old Testament tradition concerning the Messiah evidently played a decisive role in their positive assessment of the cometary Bethlehem Star.

This naturally raises the question of why the Magi, trained in astrology, felt the need to turn to Jewish tradition to explain what they observed. Clearly there was something unusual and remarkable about the sight that demanded to be understood with reference to Jewish messianic tradition. But what was it? What did they see? What did the comet do in the heavens that convinced these astrologers that the Jewish Messiah had been born at that very moment?