by The Great Christ Comet- Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem (retail) (epub)
Molnar makes much of some Roman coins which portray a ram looking at a star—he believes that they indicate that Aries is where astrologers would have looked for celestial indications that the Messiah had been born.47 These coins were minted in Syria. Molnar speculates, however, that the coins might have commemorated the Roman annexation of Judea in AD 6.48
However, we find Molnar’s hypothesis unpersuasive.
First, it beggars belief that an invisible sign spurred the Magi to undertake a major journey westward to Judea in search for a newborn King. Surely a great, indeed divine, king warranted a more impressive sign than this. Indeed the Magi explicitly claim that they had “seen” the star of the King of the Jews back in their homeland (v. 2). By Molnar’s own acknowledgement, neither occultation of Jupiter in 6 BC was visible in Babylonia. Neither the very new Moon nor Jupiter would have been visible at all on March 20. Moreover, Jupiter and the waning crescent Moon would have been visibly drowned out by the noonday Sun on April 17.
Second, there is no conceivable way that an occultation, particularly an invisible one, could be regarded as a “star.”49
Third, a lunar occultation of Jupiter in Aries was not particularly rare. As Molnar concedes, another one followed on April 4, AD 54.50 Why, then, would magi have made the long journey westward to worship the Messiah in 6 BC but not before or afterwards?
Fourth, the fact that Matthew is so favorable in his treatment of the Magi and the Star strongly suggests that his estimation of the Star’s significance could not have been entirely dependent on astrological presuppositions.
Fifth, Molnar’s theory cannot explain the Magi’s conviction that the newborn infant was worthy of worship as a deity.
Sixth, it is difficult to see how Jupiter managed to guide the Magi to Bethlehem and then to a particular location within the town. The claim of Molnar that the standing still is due to Jupiter’s becoming stationary51 fails to convince: a change in Jupiter’s motion would not have been detectable in the short window of time when the Magi were in Bethlehem searching for the messianic child. Even if the Magi were relying on advance calculations, these would not have been adequate to enable them to pinpoint a particular town, never mind a house within it. Moreover, identifying the Star’s “standing over” with Jupiter’s becoming stationary on December 19, 6 BC, creates an unrealistically long journey time for the Magi—some eight months.
Seventh, as Parpola observes, the significance of the astronomical phenomenon described by Molnar is unlikely to have been interpreted in the way suggested by him, for in the ancient Near East a lunar occultation of Jupiter was a bad omen, signifying disaster for a nation or kingdom or death to a king.52
Eighth, Molnar’s hypothesis cannot explain why Herod ordered that infants a year old be slaughtered “according to the time that he had ascertained from the Magi” (Matt. 2:16).
Ninth, with respect to what territory the imagery on Molnar’s coins had in view, Syria is a much more plausible candidate than Judea. After all, the coins were minted there. Molnar’s proposed connection to Judea, namely that the coins might have been commemorating the Roman annexation of Judea in AD 6, is strained. Moreover, Aries was very closely associated with Syria and a number of other territories. Vettius Valens of Antioch claimed that Aries controlled Syria and the neighboring territories (Anthology 1.2), while Manilius, Astronomica 4.744–54, regarded Aries as representing Syria and northern Egypt.53 The connection between Aries and Judea was apparently much less widespread. Ancient astrological writers were divided concerning where Judea fit in the scheme of astrological geography. Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 2.3, did include Judea/Palestine among the lands of Aries, but he also included Syria, Idumea, Gaul, Britain, and Germany. In the first centuries AD, Judea could be subsumed not only under Aries but also under Gemini, Scorpius, or Aquarius.54 Moreover, one ancient text (BM [British Museum] 47494) suggests that the astrologers of Babylon associated the signs of Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius with Amurru (the West).55
In conclusion, we find the hypothesis that lunar occultations of Jupiter in Aries explain the mystery of the Star seen by the Magi to be extremely problematic.56
Nova or Supernova Hypothesis
A nova is a massive nuclear explosion (or eruption) of a still-white-hot, old, dying star called a white dwarf. To put it in simple terms, many stars exist in pairs (or “binary systems”), consisting of a relatively cool star and a white dwarf. In some cases the white dwarf may draw gases such as hydrogen and helium from the surface of its companion star (fig. 4.2). These gases, which accumulate in a layer around the white dwarf’s surface, are subject to intense compression and heating. In due course there is a great nuclear reaction on the white dwarf that blasts the gases from its surface. This causes a very bright explosion of light that brightens the star by some 5–15 magnitudes (100–1,000,000 times) over the space of a few days or weeks (to put that into perspective, the Sun is about 14 magnitudes or 400,000 times brighter than the full Moon). The brightness fades over the following 1–3 months. Afterwards, the binary system is restored to its former state.57 On rare occasions, the brightness of a nova may be sufficient to render it visible to the naked eye (e.g., Nova Cygni 1975, which attained to +2 magnitude, approximately the brightness of the North Star, Polaris).
FIG. 4.2 How a nova occurs. Image credit: NASA/CXC/M. Weiss/Wikimedia Commons.
A supernova is an even more massive nuclear stellar explosion. There are two distinct categories: the first type (the binary-system supernova) is essentially a large and very bright nova that entails the destruction of the white dwarf, while the second type consists of a huge star that, having consumed all of its own nuclear fuel, implodes, causing a massive explosion of light and resulting in the star’s disintegration. A supernova is a very rare phenomenon but, when one occurs, it is by far the brightest “star” in the sky. The light of a supernova may remain in the sky for months, indeed up to about two or three years.58 A binary-system supernova may be up to 4,000,000,000 times brighter than the Sun (assuming a vantage point the same distance from each) during its peak.59 Examples of binary-system supernovas include SN 1006 (in AD 1006), which became much brighter in the sky than Venus (reaching apparent magnitude -7.5) (and as large as half the Moon), and SN 1604 (Kepler’s supernova in AD 1604), which appeared as bright as Jupiter at its peak (magnitude -2.5).60 A huge-star supernova may be up to 1,000,000,000 times brighter than the Sun (assuming a vantage point the same distance from each).61 An example of this kind of supernova is SN 1054 (the Crab Supernova) in AD 1054, the apparent brightness of which climaxed at about the maximum brightness of the International Space Station (magnitude -6).
Those who propose that the Star seen by the Magi was a nova or a supernova62 suggest that such a phenomenon would have been a celestial sign supremely worthy to mark a royal birth.63
There are, however, a few serious objections to the nova/supernova hypothesis.
First, there is no evidence that there was any nova or supernova in 6 BC or 5 BC. Therefore the theory is highly conjectural. Suitable candidates are lacking in the surviving astronomical records.64 However, the fact that the records are not comprehensive means that this line of argumentation has limited weight. It is much more important that, as Guy Consolmagno emphasizes, supernovas leave remains in their wake—for example, the Crab Nebula is the remnants of a supernova in AD 1054. Unfortunately for the supernova hypothesis, no remnants of a supernova 2,000 years ago have ever been discovered.65
Some have claimed that the Chinese astronomical hui-hsing, recorded in the year 5 BC, was actually a nova.66 However, most scholars concur that hui-hsing refers to a broom-star comet.67 Normally the phrase refers to tailed comets. Moreover, the location in the sky of the hui-hsing, in Capricornus, suggests that it refers to a comet rather than a nova, for that constellation is not where one would normally expect to see a nova, since it is too far from the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, where most novas are found.68 In addition, the hui-hsing of 5 BC did no
t heliacally rise. To argue that the hui-hsing is the Star, one is forced to claim that the Magi were confused—they believed that they were seeing a star’s heliacal rising, in spite of the fact that the object was “far higher in the sky than could logically be expected for a first sighting of a star.”69
Second, neither a nova nor a supernova moves within the framework of the fixed stars and constellations. Therefore neither phenomenon is capable of explaining the dramatic movement of the Star of Bethlehem, which shifted from the eastern morning sky to the southern evening sky within the space of a couple of months.
Third, an ordinary nova could not have done what Matthew states that the Star did—remain visible to the naked eye for over a year, go before the Magi to Bethlehem, or stand over a particular house in Bethlehem.
As for a supernova, while it could have remained visible for more than a year, its impressiveness would have steadily diminished over that time. Since we know that the Star’s heliacal rising occurred the best part of a year after the first appearance, it would be difficult to understand why the Magi were so deeply impressed by the supernova at its rising. After all, not only would its brightness have been greatly reduced from the time of its first appearance, but also its placement in the heavens would, of course, have been exactly where it had been the whole time.
Fourth, ordinary novas were too common to secure the kind of attention and interpretation that the Star received.70 Supernovas are more rare, at least in recent centuries (although note that there were two major ones in the eleventh century AD), but why would the Magi have interpreted one to signify the birth of the Jewish Messiah?
We are therefore very skeptical concerning the hypothesis that the Star was a nova or supernova.
Meteors Hypothesis
Sir Patrick Moore was the most prominent champion of the hypothesis that the Star seen by the Magi in the east and then in Bethlehem was actually two separate shooting stars. Meteoroids are essentially debris, mostly from comets but also from some asteroids. The mostly pebble-size or smaller objects orbit the Sun until they are destroyed by it or crash into a planet. To become visible as shooting stars to human observers on Earth, the orbit of meteoroids must cross Earth’s orbit when Earth is present. Such is the remarkable velocity of these bits of debris—up to 72 km per second!—that, upon striking Earth’s atmosphere, they gradually disintegrate even as they excite the molecules of air, giving rise to glowing streaks of light.71 Such streaks are classified as meteors or shooting stars. They may be short or long and vary greatly in brightness. Especially bright meteors are called fireballs. The very same bright meteor may be visible several hundred miles away.
While some meteors are associated with regular meteor showers, most are not. Those that are not are called sporadic meteors.
Moore believed that the Magi witnessed an especially spectacular meteor in their homeland.72 On rare occasions meteors may be as bright as the Moon or even the Sun; Moore reckoned that one such especially bright meteor was involved in the Christmas story. This gloriously bright meteor, he imagined, rose in the east and traveled through the sky in a westward direction. Although the performance would have been rather fleeting, Moore suggested that the trail left by the fireball or bolide might have been visible for hours afterwards.73
Sir Patrick proposed that another gloriously bright meteor appeared, once again in the eastern sky and once again crossing the sky in a westward trajectory.74 It is not altogether clear what was the purpose of this second fireball, whether to get the Magi to depart on their westward journey or to pinpoint the location of the child in Bethlehem at the end of their journey. Most likely, however, Moore was suggesting that the second meteor was doing the work of the Star when the Magi were in Bethlehem—unless Moore did mean this, his theory offers no explanation of the climactic appearance of the Star.75
Moore admitted that his hypothesis could not be proved, but, at the same time, insisted that it could not be disproved either and claimed that it fared better than other hypotheses.76
However, the hypothesis is easily refuted.
First, this view cannot explain how the Star could have first appeared one year or more before Herod issued the order to slaughter the infants of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16; cf. v. 7b). If the first meteor occurred then, why did the Magi take so extraordinarily long to get to Judea?
Second, it is difficult to see how a fireball, regardless of how bright, could have prompted magi to think that an important birth had taken place, never mind that of the Messiah in Judea. Evidence that fireballs or bolides were ever interpreted by ancients as marking the birth of a king is notably lacking. As to the question of how the Magi might have concluded that they should head to Judea, Moore suggested that the fireball pointed westward. But a westward-traveling fireball is hardly sufficient to identify Judea in particular as opposed to Syria, Greece, Italy, or Spain. Perhaps one could hypothesize that the fireball seemed to originate from a constellation that was suggestive of Judea or the Jews. However, Moore did not argue this, and ancients’ ideas regarding the relationship between signs/constellations and particular geographical areas were not narrow enough to permit a firm identification with Judea.
Third, meteors are too fleeting to fulfill Matthew’s description of the Star as having gone ahead of the Magi until it stood over the house where Jesus was. Moore conceded that no meteor could have done what the Star is said to have done in Matthew 2:9, but he tried to get around this problem by proposing that Matthew was simply exercising poetic license at this point in the narrative.77 However, that Moore was forced to abandon a literal interpretation of Matthew’s account, particularly at the point that the Gospel is giving its most detailed description of the Star’s behavior, is a serious, indeed fatal, problem for his hypothesis.
Fourth, Matthew is quite explicit that it was the same “star” seen in the east and in Bethlehem. Moore’s hypothesis, however, would mean that there were two meteors and hence two “stars.” Certainly it defies belief that the Magi (and Matthew) would have regarded the Bethlehem meteor, coming a long time after the initial one, as identical to the meteor that they had previously seen zipping across the sky back in their homeland.78
We therefore conclude that the two meteors hypothesis is irreconcilable with the description of the Star in the Gospel of Matthew.
An Ordinary Star: Alpha Aquarii
In recent decades a few scholars, in particular Richard Coates and David Seargent, have postulated that the Star might have been an ordinary fixed star, in particular the star Alpha Aquarii.79 This is a very ordinary star—it has a magnitude of +2.95,80 which is not particularly bright. However, according to this hypothesis, what the star lacked in brightness it made up for in astrological significance. Fundamental to this hypothesis is the fact that Alpha Aquarii was known in Arabian tradition as “the lucky star of the king/kingdom,”81 although it is conceded that it was not perceived to represent one particular royal figure.82
In order to explain why one particular annual morning rising prompted the Magi to embark on a journey westward to Judea, proponents of this view propose that some astronomical phenomenon in the relevant year must have seemed to invest the star with great significance. Seargent suggests that there may have been an alignment between a planet and this star.83 Alternatively, he mentions the possibility that an important conjunction or a massing of planets at an astrologically significant moment might have engendered Alpha Aquarii’s heliacal rising with special meaning that year.84
Seargent speculates that, in the wake of the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces of 7 BC, the rising of Alpha Aquarii in February of 6 BC would have been regarded as having special importance.85 He claims that Pisces was the zodiacal sign of Israel and the Messiah and that the “constellation” was associated with “change and new beginnings.”86
According to this theory, during the Magi’s short journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, sometime between July and September, this star would have moved in front of them unti
l it crossed the meridian, its highest point (“culmination”), in the south. When an astronomical object culminates, it seems to pause for a while before descending in altitude to the west. Seargent deduces that this pause coincided with the arrival of the Magi in Bethlehem and seemed to pinpoint the precise location where Jesus and his mother were.87
However, this hypothesis is uncompelling.
First, we have no evidence to suggest that the name assigned to Alpha Aquarii by the Arabs was the same one attributed to the star by astrologers at the time of the Magi or that this star was of notable astrological significance in the first century BC.
Second, an overview of the history of the star in 7–5 BC shows that there was no conjunction involving the star, and no planetary massing in its vicinity. As for the idea that a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in Pisces endowed the heliacal rising of Alpha Aquarii with special significance, one must ask why. The logic of such an association is obscure, to say the least.
Third, there is no foundation for the claim that Pisces was widely regarded as the zodiacal sign of Judea and its eschatological King, the Messiah, at the turn of the ages.88
Fourth, we lack a single scrap of evidence that the star Alpha Aquarii had any messianic significance or that its rising would have communicated that a divine figure had been born. There is no way that the ordinary rising of this unimpressive star could have prompted the Magi to embark on a long journey to Judea in search of the Messiah.
Fifth, this theory requires that the Magi took an inordinate amount of time to journey from their eastern homeland to Judea. At the same time, this hypothesis cannot explain why Herod asked when the Star had first appeared or why the Magi told him that it had first appeared between one and two years beforehand.
