Thread: Kerygmania: The Star Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000976
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Familiarly:
quote:
Matthew 2:2 ...saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”…
9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy.
There is nothing here to suggest that the magi followed the star from wherever they were "in the east" to Jerusalem.
Rather, they saw a star in the eastern sky and recognized it somehow as a sign that the "king of the Jews" had been born, so they went to Jerusalem to ask about it.
After they learned that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and set out to go there, the star then reappeared and guided them. They rejoiced at its reappearance.
I always assume that this was not an actual physical star that could have been seen by anyone, but an angelic sign that only appeared to these people. Is this the common assumption?
I have been told that there would have also been people employed in Jerusalem to watch the stars and study them for astrological signs. Is this true?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:21: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There is nothing here to suggest that the magi followed the star from wherever they were "in the east" to Jerusalem.
Rather, they saw a star in the eastern sky and recognized it somehow as a sign that the "king of the Jews" had been born, so they went to Jerusalem to ask about it.
After they learned that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and set out to go there, the star then reappeared and guided them. They rejoiced at its reappearance.
This is the way I have always heard it explained. I can't see any better way to make sense of the text.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
Matthew's imagery and structure suggests parallels to Nebuchadnezzar and his wise men in Daniel 2.
It's part of his scheme to portray Joseph as the "new Daniel" (and the "new Joseph of Genesis") in his ability to interpret dreams and visions.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Well, if they did follow a star, there is an explanation about how it would have gone here from a scientific perspective.
Apparently if they followed an actual physical star only when it was visible at night and not obscured by the earth (due to earth's rotation) they would have ended up in the right place if they started from Jerusalem, though if they followed it day and night, in Antarctica.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
The star ended up above the place where the child was.
If anyone can tell me how a star can pinpoint a single place on earth I would be grateful.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
A good Orthodox Christian like mousethief might appreciate the following.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The star ended up above the place where the child was.
If anyone can tell me how a star can pinpoint a single place on earth I would be grateful.
Venbede's answer is the obvious one.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Well, if they did follow a star, there is an explanation about how it would have gone here from a scientific perspective.
I presume you are joking, but with a poker face.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The star ended up above the place where the child was.
If anyone can tell me how a star can pinpoint a single place on earth I would be grateful.
Venbede's answer is the obvious one.
Hardly obvious to anyone with the modern understanding of stars to think that a star could really hover a foot over a baby's head, or become minuscule compared to its normal size.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The emphasis in Matthew is on the Magi, not the star which is more a mechanism to get them setting off for Judea than anything else. Their mistaken assumption that they need to go to Jerusalem is clearly evidence that the star didn't lead them (no "following yonder star"), and it seems more like the reappearance of the star is just a confirmation that they're in the right place.
The role the Magi play in the narrative is important. First they emphasise that the gospel is for all people, not just the Jews.
They are the descendents of the magicians and court officials of Mesopotamia that we encounter in Daniel, and spiritually at least the magicians of the court of Pharoah who tried to replicate the miracles of the exodus story. The contrast is that in the OT narratives the magicians and wise men of other nations oppose God and are humiliated by the superior wonders performed by the prophets of God (you could, for example, add in the prophets of Baal unable to light their sacrifice). Whereas, here we have the magicians and wise men of other nations coming to worship the Christ child who the leaders of the Jews reject and attempt to murder.
The side trip to Jerusalem allows Matthew to bring in Herod and the slaughter of the innocents. Which sets up a parallel with Moses (newspaper headlines "Evil king slaughters children, predestined saviour escapes!" could apply to both stories), with an additional twist of Mary and Joseph escaping with their son to the safety of Egypt - the irony of the nation where Israel was enslaved and had to be freed from by the powerful hand of God being a safer place for the saviour of Israel than the promised land!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Hardly obvious to anyone with the modern understanding of stars to think that a star could really hover a foot over a baby's head, or become minuscule compared to its normal size.
Yet obvious to every child who hears the story. A magic star is a magic star. Children take the story at face value and I've never heard one say "but a star so close to the ground would have burned down the house."
If it wasn't a magic star it would be also be implausible to think that it would appear when Christ was born, or that anyone would recognize it as a sign of His birth.
I would think that if the writer's obvious intention of portraying it as a magic star that could do what is described is implausible, then other things about the story are even more implausible - the virgin birth, the angelic appearances, the Incarnation, to name a few.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Quite.
Most people don't 'do the math'.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They are the descendents of the magicians and court officials of Mesopotamia that we encounter in Daniel, and spiritually at least the magicians of the court of Pharoah who tried to replicate the miracles of the exodus story. The contrast is that in the OT narratives the magicians and wise men of other nations oppose God and are humiliated by the superior wonders performed by the prophets of God (you could, for example, add in the prophets of Baal unable to light their sacrifice). Whereas, here we have the magicians and wise men of other nations coming to worship the Christ child who the leaders of the Jews reject and attempt to murder.
I love that. The contrast is interesting.
An alternative that plays off of that same line of thinking is that the visit of the maji replicated the visit of the Queen of Sheba:
quote:
I Kings 10:2 She came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels that bore spices, very much gold, and precious stones
Instead of the contrast with the magicians who oppose God we have the similarity with a foreign ruler who comes to pay tribute to a great king. She brings similar gifts. It is also interesting that she is a queen, as is often said about the wise men, probably because of prophecies like these:
quote:
Psalm 72:10 The kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.
11 Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him;
All nations shall serve Him.
15 And He shall live; and the gold of Sheba will be given to Him.
Isaiah 60:5 A multitude of camels will cover you, dromedaries of Midian and Ephah, all those from Sheba will come. They will bring gold and frankincense, and will spread abroad the praises of the Lord.
Of course there is no evidence that the maji were kings, and whether they came from Persia or Sheba or somewhere else is just speculation based on more or less persuasive evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the irony of the nation where Israel was enslaved and had to be freed from by the powerful hand of God being a safer place for the saviour of Israel than the promised land!
Yes, this is ironic. Yet Egypt was also the traditional place of refuge when there were difficulties in Canaan. Both Abraham and Isaac went there during famine, as did Jacob and his sons. It only became a place of enslavement when Jacob's descendents stayed there too long.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is also interesting that she is a queen, as is often said about the wise men,
I didn't mean that the way it sounds. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Rather, she is a ruler, as is traditionally said of the wise men.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The magi are called kings because of the reference in Psalm 72: May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080718084442/http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/star_clarke.html
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The star ended up above the place where the child was.
If anyone can tell me how a star can pinpoint a single place on earth I would be grateful.
Because the earth was believed to be a stationary sphere around which the "firmament" sphere of the heavens slowly moved. (The Hebrews originally followed the Egyptians in believing in a flat earth, but the Greek culture in which Matthew lived cleared up that nonsense and proved that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe...)
Geometrically, if you draw a line from the center of the earth perpendicular to the surface, it points to a particular spot in the sky, and that's where the star was assumed by Matthew to be...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080718084442/http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/star_clarke.html
OK. I read it. What was it about? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Read it again. It's pretty self-explanatory.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Random stuff--
The ancients did not AFAIK believe in stars being really close to the earth, as you can see when you read some of the ancient estimates. They are wildly off the truth of course, but still, the idea of thousands of miles is nothing to snicker at.
There's also the slight problem of what do you call a heavenly light that is visible at night, is clearly smaller than the moon, but behaves in odd ways (whether that's moving or just vanishing and reappearing). Not having the scientific vocabulary we do or the instruments to figure out what the heck it actually is, the easiest solution was to call it a "star" with some qualifier or description added (like the Chinese referring to comets as "hairy stars", or the folks who called the planets "wandering stars".)
So "star" seems a reasonable thing to call the whatever-it-was, even though it behaved in a weird way. And as for childish images, I'm afraid I always imagined a bright dot with a spotlight under it. I never figured the star thingy was very close to earth or apt to burn anything. None of the real stars I knew caused any heat at all, as far as I could feel.
Is it worth remembering that Bethlehem is only a long walk from Jerusalem? Because if they are going to go there directly from Herod's palace, all they really need is the general direction. They'll walk smash into Bethlehem pretty quickly, especially since the Torah experts have given them its name! and then it's just a matter of finding the right house. Which may have been on the outskirts of the village or something, to lessen confusion. Though I still like my childish spotlight idea....
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Geometrically, if you draw a line from the center of the earth perpendicular to the surface, it points to a particular spot in the sky, and that's where the star was assumed by Matthew to be...
Interesting. How do you know that? Where was the center of the earth? How does that compare with the statement that the star was in the eastern sky?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The star ended up above the place where the child was.
If anyone can tell me how a star can pinpoint a single place on earth I would be grateful.
Because the earth was believed to be a stationary sphere around which the "firmament" sphere of the heavens slowly moved. (The Hebrews originally followed the Egyptians in believing in a flat earth, but the Greek culture in which Matthew lived cleared up that nonsense and proved that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe...)
Geometrically, if you draw a line from the center of the earth perpendicular to the surface, it points to a particular spot in the sky, and that's where the star was assumed by Matthew to be...
Yeah, but unless the star was only a few miles up you'd not be able to tell where that point on the surface was with any accuracy. When a star is overhead at London it appears pretty much overhead anywhere in the Home Counties.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I just remembered another relevant bit of information about the star. It fulfills a mythological role in comparing Christ with Caesar.
Roman mythology has the Roman people descended from the survivor of Troy, led westward from the ruins of Troy to found a new city (Rome). Led westwards by a star.
I'm trying to remember which god was supposed to have fathered the ancestor of the Roman Emperor (Apollo, I think). But that myth was used to give the title "Son of God" to Caesar - who also held other titles ascribed to Christ (eg: Lord, Prince of Peace).
To a readership within the first century, parallels to the myths of Rome would have been very powerful. A new religion setting a new Lord and Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth) against the existing Lord and Son of God (Caesar) would have a set of myths of their own. You have a guiding star in your myths, so do we. You have a Lord born of mortal woman and God, so do we.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To a readership within the first century, parallels to the myths of Rome would have been very powerful.
I think that's an important point.
And not only the myths of Rome. These kinds of myths were common virtually everywhere in the ancient world. So there is nothing surprising about the account in Matthew, nor would it have seemed impossible to the first century readership.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How does that compare with the statement that the star was in the eastern sky?
Was the star in the east, or were the magi in the east? The text seems to be ambiguous, unless there is a point of Greek syntax I have missed.
My Greek is not very good; I would welcome some expert comment.
Moo
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Was the star in the east, or were the magi in the east? The text seems to be ambiguous, unless there is a point of Greek syntax I have missed.
My understanding is that the Greek is unambiguous. The star was in the eastern sky.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
The phrase ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ could be read as describing the location of the star or the Magi. Anatole, while normally translated East, could also be translated 'rising.' I think this makes much better sense of the verse: they saw the star in its rising.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I
I go with Raymond Brown in "The Birth of the Messiah", Its magisterial. So I believe the Birth stories are theological constructs and not historical accounts,
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Is there a connection between when Matthew was written (66 CE) and the flyby of Halley's Comet that year and the story of the star of Bethlehem?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... when Matthew was written (66 CE)...
How on earth can you poissibly know that?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Matthew's imagery and structure suggests parallels to Nebuchadnezzar and his wise men in Daniel 2.
It's part of his scheme to portray Joseph as the "new Daniel" (and the "new Joseph of Genesis") in his ability to interpret dreams and visions.
Matthews Gospel has greater use of the apocalyptic than the other synoptics. It would be consistent with his style for the story of the magi to be one of these passages.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
This is such a fascinating thread! I love how so many different meanings weave together to make this such a rich story.
I've tended to think about the fact that the magi were astrologers, so they were perhaps looking at charts as much or more than the sky itself. In this reading, they were led more by their interpretation of the star and its meaning than by a moving star. But if that were a flat literal meaning of the text, Matthew wouldn't have said the star moved and stood over where the Christ child was.
I like having multiple readings available, though. And I love the comparisons with Roman myth. I do think the Gospels in general want to show how Jesus is the true Lord that Caesar pretends to be, and that the very nature of lordship is revealed in Christ to be at odds with what earthly rulers think it is.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I do think the Gospels in general want to show how Jesus is the true Lord that Caesar pretends to be, and that the very nature of lordship is revealed in Christ to be at odds with what earthly rulers think it is.
That is such an excellent point!
And not just Caesar. A random google of the topic brings up quotes like:
quote:
"In actuality, many ancient gods, kings and heroes were said to have been born under a 'bright star' or some other sort of celestial sign." (The Star in the East)
It is interesting to me that some of the things that we associate exclusively with Christianity and the Bible were common ancient practices and ideas.
An example is baptism, which was widely practiced in John the Baptist's day. Others from the Christmas story are well known, such as the virgin birth claim and the "son of god" appellation. In the ancient world, great men were often understood to be born of mortal women and divine fathers.
To me these things don't undermine the biblical accounts. Rather, they testify to the larger context of God's actions, and the reality of the "ancient" wisdom often referred to in the Bible.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Here's a thought that came to me (appropriately enough) in the night ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What if the star of Bethlehem was an angel?
We are told the morning stars sang together - these are interpreted to be angelic beings, are they not? There are other occasions when 'stars' are used to refer to angels.
Isn't it entirely consistent with the Nativity as a whole - angels appear to Mary and Joseph and the shepherds; why can not the star in the east be an angelic figure?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Here's a thought that came to me (appropriately enough) in the night
What if the star of Bethlehem was an angel?
We are told the morning stars sang together - these are interpreted to be angelic beings, are they not? There are other occasions when 'stars' are used to refer to angels.
Isn't it entirely consistent with the Nativity as a whole - angels appear to Mary and Joseph and the shepherds; why can not the star in the east be an angelic figure?
Matthew was happy enough to call an angel an angel elsewhere - why would he suddenly turn to using the term "star" here?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Here's a thought that came to me (appropriately enough) in the night
What if the star of Bethlehem was an angel?
We are told the morning stars sang together - these are interpreted to be angelic beings, are they not? There are other occasions when 'stars' are used to refer to angels.
Isn't it entirely consistent with the Nativity as a whole - angels appear to Mary and Joseph and the shepherds; why can not the star in the east be an angelic figure?
Matthew was happy enough to call an angel an angel elsewhere - why would he suddenly turn to using the term "star" here?
Presumably for a similar reason why 'stars' and 'sons of God' are used in the same verse in Job to describe the same things. Also, in Revelation we are told that Jesus holds the seven stars in his hand (angels) and that there are are also angels. Also, Jesus spoke about the stars of heaven falling and the powers in heaven being shaken. Sometimes the OT/Gospel writers do use different words for similar things.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Astrologers however do not generally study the movements of angels and draw conclusions from them.
I can see poetic identifications, but the journey of the Magi is not really poetry; it's a bit of narrative prose. On the face of it, a bunch of esoteric astrologers turn up at Herod's court and start wittering about new kings and events of astrological significance pointing thereat. I'm not sure identifying the star as an angel does anything but complicate matters.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What if the star of Bethlehem was an angel?
Yes, this is what my church teaches. The star that the wise men saw was spiritual, and was actually a society of angels.
In addition to what you mentioned, other passages also refer to people or angels as stars:
quote:
Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.
Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches.
So it is perfectly appropriate for the star that led the maji to have been angels. Surely angels led the wise men to find Jesus, not a physical star.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Oh no! I'm transforming into a Swedenborgian! I'm being assimilated! LOL
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm being assimilated! LOL
Assimilated by the borg. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I read this article about a comet that will probably appear in the winter sky December 2013. It's tail may be bright enough even to be seen in daylight.
There still are a couple of if's
If it does not break up on its way to the Sun
If it can make it around the Sun.
Maybe we will have an example of the Bethlehem star next Christmas
Stay tuned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/comet-ison-moon_n_2377883.html
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The role the Magi play in the narrative is important. First they emphasise that the gospel is for all people, not just the Jews.
Is it clear that the Magi weren't Jews? AIUI there was a sizable Jewish community in Babylon at the time.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I would have thought the big give away that they are not portrayed as Jews was that they go to King Herod and not to the High Priests when looking for "the King of the Jews".
I would have thought any Jew would have been highly ambivalent about talking to Herod about that. iirc Herod was only partly Jewish and not really of Davidic lineage.
Jengie
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it clear that the Magi weren't Jews?
Magi were the Iranian priestly tribe or caste. Its probably as strong a clue that they were Zoroastrians as calling someone a Levite would have been that they were a Jew.
Only "probably" because sometime between then and now the range of usage was extended to include astrologers and all sorts of other occultists. Hence our word "magic". That might have already been the case when Matthew was written. (Whenever that was!)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it clear that the Magi weren't Jews?
Magi were the Iranian priestly tribe or caste. Its probably as strong a clue that they were Zoroastrians as calling someone a Levite would have been that they were a Jew.
Only "probably" because sometime between then and now the range of usage was extended to include astrologers and all sorts of other occultists. Hence our word "magic". That might have already been the case when Matthew was written. (Whenever that was!)
I agree that the usage of term "magi" was extended to include astrologers and all sorts of other occultists from a wide variety of places that could be identified as "the east".
Matthew, who was not Persian and could not be expected to be familiar with Zoroaster, would have likely used the term in its broadest sense to refer to any foreign notable who said:
quote:
“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
So I think the magi could have come from a number of places, but they were clearly not Jewish.
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
I thought there was a commet in 5 BC, that would appear to fit the spec.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
I thought there was a commet in 5 BC, that would appear to fit the spec.
Are you saying that the comet led them directly to the house, or that this part of the story is myth?
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
No a real comet. One was recorded by Chinese astronomers in that year.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Matthew, who was not Persian and could not be expected to be familiar with Zoroaster...
"Persia" in those days, ruled by the Parthians, included what is now Iraq - which the Jews called Babylon (even though the city of Babylon was no longer the capital). There was a large Jewish population there, it was one of the centres of Jewish culture and scholarship. There was also a lot of trade between Mesopotamia and Syria. The Jews of Jesus's time were far more closely connected to the Persians than they were to the Romans. I'd expect they were at least as likely to have heard of Zoroaster as of Plato or Socrates. And probably has heard of both.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
No a real comet. One was recorded by Chinese astronomers in that year.
Yes, but so what? All we have to go on is the text we have. That text has no hint whatsoever of what "we saw his star in the East" might mean in detail. We can, just about, argue about whether the Magi were meant to be literal Zoroastrians or intended to refer to any manufacturers of occult products, because we have at least a little historical context, though not really enough to be sure. But for the other thing, we'd need, I guess, some contemporary examples of the same phrases being used with some explanation. Maybe someone has dug up some first century translations of Babylonian astrological textbooks into Koine Greek - but short of that I'm not sure we can speculate about what was meant by the star.
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
Ken in response to your comment “so what”,
I was only answering the original post by Freddie “I always assume that this was not an actual physical star that could have been seen by anyone, but an angelic sign that only appeared to these people. Is this the common assumption?” It is not a 'common assumption' in that number of people believe that might well have been a physical star.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
It is not a 'common assumption' in that number of people believe that might well have been a physical star.
Thanks. Good input.
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
Most kind, thank you Freddie
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I heard a very interesting talk this morning by an astronomer. There is a new theory about the star, and it impressed me.
The magi were Zoroastrian astrologers; they were very familiar with the sky, and they interpreted sky signs as revelations about human affairs.
In 2 B.C. there were two conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter. Since these are the brightest planets, these conjunctions must have been very impressive. The first took place in the constellation Leo, the lion. Throughout the Middle East, the lion was recognized as a symbol for Judea. The brightest star in Leo is Regulus, which means 'king'.
It is generally assumed that the star moved and led the magi. However, the text doesn't say that. The magi said, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him." The appearance of the star in Leo was enough to tell the magi what had happened where. They were experts at interpreting the heavens.
The second conjunction of Venus and Jupiter happened about ten months after the first. It was even more spectacular. For a period of some hours, it appeared that the two had fused. This would have given the appearance that these planets had stopped moving. It would explain the star apparently stopping just above the place where Jesus was.
This theory explains some things and creates at least one problem. It explains why no one at Herod's court had noticed a star. There was no one in Judea who spent all their time studying the heavens. It solves the problem of how a star could lead anyone.
The problem is that Matthew says that the magi spoke to Herod, who died in 4 B.C., two years before this astronomical phenomenon.
Still, this makes more sense to me than any other explanation I have heard.
Moo
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Sorry, but that's not a new theory; I heard it 30 years ago
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
I am glad that you posted that, Moo, because I've been trying (with no luck) to unearth some notes I took at a presentation a few years ago. For several years, the December sky show at Chicago's Adler Planetarium was on the "star of wonder," and the information they presented was exactly what you described (with lots of cool graphics and projections up above one's head, though ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
). I wish I could find my notes because they also addressed the phrase "we have seen the star at its rising" from an astronomical standpoint but I can't remember what it was. Anyway, I agree with you, it seems very plausible.
I'm not usually one to grasp at scientific or historical findings just to "prove" something in the Bible, but this one gave me pause, in a "what-if?" sort of way.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I wish I could find my notes because they also addressed the phrase "we have seen the star at its rising" from an astronomical standpoint but I can't remember what it was.
The lecture mentioned 'at its rising'. IIRC, the conjunction did not last a very long time; 'at its rising' meant while it was visible.
Moo
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It is generally assumed that the star moved and led the magi. However, the text doesn't say that.
But it does - not a big issue for me but it struck me when I read the gospel at mass yesterday - v. 9 "When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was."
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I meant that it did not lead them from the east to Judea.
The second conjunction was the one which appeared to stop over the place where Jesus was.
Moo
[ 07. January 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The second conjunction was the one which appeared to stop over the place where Jesus was.
This assumes quite a bit of stretching in the text then. A normal star, no matter how bright, cannot even appear to lead someone to a particular house. It remains always in the distance.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
A normal star, no matter how bright, cannot even appear to lead someone to a particular house. It remains always in the distance.
AIUI the idea is that when the two planets appeared to fuse, they also appeared to stop.
Moo
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
A normal star, no matter how bright, cannot even appear to lead someone to a particular house. It remains always in the distance.
AIUI the idea is that when the two planets appeared to fuse, they also appeared to stop.
I don't know how much experience you have following stars. But it is a little like trying to identify the end of the rainbow. It's always over the next hill. Not bad as a navigational tool, but useless for identifying particular spots.
But of course my main point is that I think that Matthew is clearly identifying this as a special, magic, miraculous star, visible only to the wise men, to go along with the even more magic, miraculous, fact of God being born on earth to a virgin. Two equally impossible things.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The second conjunction was the one which appeared to stop over the place where Jesus was.
This assumes quite a bit of stretching in the text then. A normal star, no matter how bright, cannot even appear to lead someone to a particular house. It remains always in the distance.
Well, to me, the twice-appearing star is an excellent interpretation.
Had the star moved across the heavens gradually every night leading the wise men to Jerusalem like a little flashing tracking device, why would they have needed to go to Jerusalem in the first place?
To me it makes eminent sense that the star did appear in 'their' sky in the east as a conjunction, perfectly placed constellation, or whatever and then disappeared. This was enough for them to know that a new King had been born in Israel. They also perceived that this new King was divine - they did say, after all, that they had come to worship him.
They went to Jerusalem because that was the capital and they expected him to be in the palace.
It was only when they were told that Bethlehem was the Scripturally-predicted birthplace that they (presumably) looked again at their charts and then saw the star had reappeared in the correct place as they looked at the town of Bethlehem.
As for the star not appearing 'over the place where the child was.' It seems to me perfectly acceptable to assume this because, for example, the pyramids of Egypt were built apparently so that on a certain day or time of the year, the constellation of Orion was perfectly in alignment.
Could it not simply be that on the night in question the star/conjunction/constellation, as it wheeled through the heavens was now in perfect alignment with the house Jesus was in and that this could be seen from the surrounding countryside if one knew which star to look for?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Had the star moved across the heavens gradually every night leading the wise men to Jerusalem like a little flashing tracking device, why would they have needed to go to Jerusalem in the first place?
I agree that the star did not lead them to Jerusalem.
Rather, a star appeared and they recognized it as meaning that the King of the Jews had been born. So they went to Jerusalem, as you say.
But how did they recognize it?
To me it is clear that these ancient magicians were truly wise remnants of an ancient religion. They therefore received understandings from angels just as the Israelite prophets had. Without this kind of communication this knowledge would have been impossible.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Though I'm not persuaded by the main argument that the star was a comet, Humfries, Science & Christian Belief 5 (1993) does include some interesting comments about the star "standing over" Bethlehem. In particular that the same phraseology is used in other ancient literature (p87), he cites Dio Cassius and Josephus describing comets standing over Rome and Jerusalem at historically significant points.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
My understanding of this is that "Matthew" knew something about Magi (and other astrologers) interpreting the stars, but didn't really understand how it was done. So when the story was created, it ended up being a mishmash of astrological events.
There is the first incident, when a star appears that tells of the birth of a royal child. That's pretty commonplace stuff and could easily have been a nova or (more likely IMHO) two or more planets coming into alignment.
Then we have the idea of a star leading people - which seems to be a reference to some kind of comet. But it seems clear that Matthew didn't really understand what this was like, and so has the star stopping over Bethlehem.
I think that the best we can say is that Matthew was aware of some stories of stars appearing in the skies in the not too distant past; that he was aware of the role of eastern astrologers in interpreting the stars (though not in detail); that he combined all these together to create a narrative about Gentiles coming to pay homage to the Saviour.
I think attempts to pin this down to specific astronomical events are pretty futile (although it is always fun to speculate!).
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The Emperor Vespasian claimed when he was born there was a star that appeared over Rome. If Matthew was written at the time of Vespasian, it would not be too much of a stretch to see him co-opting the claim of Vespasian--or did Vespasian co-opt the Christian claim?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Emperor Vespasian claimed when he was born there was a star that appeared over Rome. If Matthew was written at the time of Vespasian, it would not be too much of a stretch to see him co-opting the claim of Vespasian--or did Vespasian co-opt the Christian claim?
Having stars appear at the time of royal births was actually the norm. This was a theme throughout the ancient world, as we discussed above.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0