The Great Christ Comet
Page 41
And it should be remembered that all of this was orchestrated to put on a dramatic celestial show tailored particularly for one small group of people, even when they were on the move. It disclosed to them detailed information regarding the Messiah and his birth, prompting them to leave their homeland on a pilgrimage to worship him. It accompanied and encouraged them as they traveled. After ushering the Magi to Bethlehem, it pinpointed the Messiah’s precise location by setting near-vertically on the other side of the house from where they were. Having journeyed with the Magi all the way from Babylon to Bethlehem, we can appreciate just how awestruck they must have been as they bowed down and worshiped baby Jesus. The comet likewise beckons all humans to fall to their knees, doing so with greater awe than the Magi, reflecting a deeper appreciation of what God did to authenticate Jesus as the Messiah on the occasion of his birth—and how he did it.
In the words of Psalm 19:1–4a,
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky proclaims the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour out speech,
night after night they communicate knowledge.
There is no literal speech, nor are there literal words,
no sound is literally heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.8
Appendix 1
The Chinese Comet Records
We have made a case that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet. Why, then, is there no mention of it in the extant Chinese astronomical records?
As great a boon as the Chinese astronomical records are to students of ancient astronomy, there can be no question but that only a small percentage of records from the first century BC and the first century AD have survived.
Many comets were observed by the ancients that are not present in the extant Chinese records: for example, those in 480 BC (Greece only—a horn-shaped comet), 426 BC (Greece only), 373–372 BC (Greece only—this was a spectacular comet described by Aristotle, Meteorologica 343b as “great” and by Ephorus [Seneca, Natural Questions 7.16.2] as splitting in two), 345–344 BC (Italy only), 341–340 BC (Greece only), 210 BC (Babylonia only), 164 BC (Babylonia only), 163 BC (Babylonia only),1 43 BC (Italy only), 42 BC (Italy/Greece only2), 31 BC (Italy/Greece only), 30 BC (Italy/Greece only), 17 BC (Italy/Greece only), AD 9 (Germany/Italy only), AD 14 (Italy only), AD 59 (Korea only), AD 79 (Korea and Italy only, or Korea only and Italy only3), and AD 85,4 128, 153, 154 and 158 (all Korea only).5
Indeed we may add other comets to the list, for example, the Great Comet of 44 BC. It appeared in the aftermath of Julius Caesar’s death during the Games of Venus Genetrix at around the eleventh hour of the day6 and hence was a daytime comet that justified Plutarch’s description of “a great comet which shone brilliantly for seven nights after Caesar’s murder.”7 The Chinese record a comet, whether the same one as Caesar’s Comet or a different one, in May–June of that year, but there is no surviving Chinese record of the extraordinary daytime cometary phenomenon that occurred toward the end of July.8
Octavia mentions a comet of “brilliant radiance” in the constellation Bootes in AD 62 that is not present in the extant Chinese records.9
In addition, Pliny10 mentions a comet that shone almost continually and had a terrible glare in AD 6411 that some12 have identified as the Chinese “guest star” in May–July, but, as Gary Kronk notes,13 Tacitus made it clear that Pliny’s comet appeared “at the end of the year.”14 There is therefore no surviving Chinese record of Pliny’s comet. We must remember that comets do sometimes come in clusters. For example, the 1530s saw notable comets in 1531, 1532, 1533, 1538, and 1539,15 and in the latter half of 1618 three magnificent comets graced the skies,16 followed by a 100-degree comet early in 1619.17 The years 1880–1882 featured four great comets.18
Furthermore, Josephus19 mentions a comet that remained visible for one year (apparently in AD 65–66), which may or may not at one point have resembled a sword, of which there is no surviving Chinese record.
With respect to the first century BC, the surviving Chinese records mention only 13 (or 14)20 comets for the whole of the first century BC and indeed a paltry 10 (or 11) comets for the period 50 BC to AD 50:21 49 BC, 47 BC, May–June 44 BC, 32 BC, 12 BC, 5 BC (possibly two), 4 BC, AD 13, AD 22, AD 39.22
These Chinese records are derived from the Han shu, that is, The History of the Former Han Dynasty, which, as noted, was composed in the late first and early second centuries AD, and completed in AD 111. From 50 BC to AD 50, the Han shu preserves less than half of all the surviving comet records from the period and about 11–13% of the total number of comets that would generally be expected to be visible to the naked eye over such a period. The large gaps between recorded comets—43–33 BC, 31–13 BC, 11–6 BC, and 3 BC–AD 12—reinforce the conclusion that many cometary apparitions are missing. Indeed there is a notable lull in Han shu records of portents generally between 10 and 6 BC. In comparison, 20–11 BC and 5–1 BC are “peak” periods. To some extent the peaks and troughs may reflect political developments within China.23 For example, the resurgence of records in 5–1 BC coincides with the end of the honeymoon period of Emperor Ai’s reign and the upswelling of widespread disillusionment regarding his rule.24
Even if we judge the extant Chinese records in these centuries by the standard of later centuries—for example, the third or fourth century AD—the patchy nature of the surviving Chinese records is clearly seen. And we have good reason to believe that major comets are missing from the surviving Chinese records in the fourth century. According to Zdenek Sekanina and P. W. Chodas, the intrinsically very bright giant parent of the Kreutz Sungrazing Family of comets arrived at perihelion in AD 356, but we lack any mention of it in the Chinese records.25 If the progenitor of the Kreutz family, unquestionably one of the most spectacular comets in history, did indeed arrive in that year, the absence of a Chinese record of it might say a lot about the state of the surviving Chinese records even from that period.
What confirms that there were other comets in our period is A. A. Barrett’s catalog of cometary observations collected from scattered references in Greco-Roman literature:26 the southern Europeans happen to mention comets during this very period which are not to be found among the extant Chinese records. Barrett points out that comets are mentioned in Greco-Roman literature for the following years: 49 BC, 48 BC, (July) 44 BC, 43 BC, 42 BC (multiple comets), 31 BC, 30 BC, 17 BC, 12 BC, AD 9 (multiple comets), and AD 14.27 The historical reliability of some of these Greco-Roman cometary references may be questioned by some, but a good number of them have excellent historical credentials and cannot legitimately be discounted.
Moreover, Korean records make reference to yet other comets unpreserved in the extant Chinese records in the relevant period, one in March 44 BC and another in AD 46–47.28
Hunger, Stephenson, Walker, and Yau emphasize what a tiny proportion of astronomical records from the Former Han period (206 BC–AD 9) has survived. They point out that during the entire Former Han period we never find more than 3 observations per year, and they sharply contrast this with the surviving nightly reports in the Babylonian Diaries and with the extant Chinese records from subsequent centuries.29
Lest one think that the surviving Chinese records would have included all of the major cometary phenomena in the latter part of the first century BC and first half of the first century AD, we should remember that they lack any reference to the following: the July 44 BC daylight comet; the multiple cometary apparitions in 42 BC;30 the 17 BC comet as bright as the full Moon that stretched across the whole sky, north to south;31 the 12 BC comet that experienced a fragmentation event;32 and “several comets [that] appeared at the same time” in AD 9.33 Notable comets are therefore missing from the extant Chinese records in the very period during which the Bethlehem Star appeared.
It is clear, then, that the extant Chinese records are very patchy indeed. Indeed so paltry is the nu
mber of cometary apparitions in the extant Chinese records in the relevant period that it is preferable to ask not why the surviving Chinese records lack certain comets, but rather why the historians of the Han shu preserved the particular ones that they did. Records of most comets, including a number of spectacular cometary phenomena, did not make it into the Han shu, and these would have been lost to history without the writings and records of other countries. In the period from 50 BC to AD 50, Greco-Roman literature and Korean astronomical records together contribute more than half of all extant references to cometary apparitions, and make it abundantly clear that the extant Chinese records lack great cometary apparitions.
What factors determined whether the writers of the Han shu included or excluded cometary records?
One important factor was that only a limited number of records were available to the historians of the Han shu. Hunger et al. state that it is certain that many astronomical records were lost prior to the composition of the Han shu.34 It should be remembered that the efficiency of astronomical record-keeping and record preservation during the Former Han dynasty fluctuated greatly.35 In explaining the absence of a record of the Halley’s Comet 164 BC apparition in the Chinese records, and the lack of a sure reference to the 87 BC apparition, Stephenson comments: “In order to offer an explanation for this deficiency we must examine the statistics of astronomical observations throughout the Former Han dynasty. . . . Clearly much data must have been missing by the time the Han-shu was compiled . . . , a conclusion that is supported by the highly irregular form of the histogram.”36
Second, as Hunger et al. also highlight, the content of a history is determined by what its author/editor sees fit to include, and it is therefore likely that a lot of data that would have been of great interest and significance to modern astronomers was deliberately excluded by the ancient historians and therefore has not survived.37 Pankenier emphasizes that the editors of the Han shu, working on behalf of the ruling emperor, made their determinations regarding which astronomical records to include in their history based largely on whether the particular reports showed the working out of gan-ying theory, that every human action is met with a cosmic reaction.38 They were more likely to include a particular astronomical report if the observation played a key role in political or military history or seemed to augur the end of the dynasty. Halley’s Comet in 12 BC made a deep impression on the Chinese at the time because of the astrological messages it seemed to convey against the backdrop of the constellations. According to the Han shu, one contemporary astrologer (Gu Yong) stated, “This is an omen of extreme disorder such as has been rarely seen since high antiquity. If we examine the rapid movement [of this object], the variations in the length of its flaming rays, and the [constellations] on which it has trespassed successively, [it clearly signifies] harm to the women of the rear palace within, and the disaster of rebellion in the realm without.”39 The Han shu goes on to record that another official warned that this was a terrible omen for the dynasty.40 The extraordinary detail given concerning this comet and its interpretation in the Han shu is present because it fit so perfectly with the historians’ agenda: the heavens had spelled doom for the Former Han dynasty.
Could a reason for the patchy nature of the cometary records be traceable back to the process of reporting observations? The astronomers were civil servants tasked with maintaining a daily watch of the sky, both day and night, on the lookout for celestial omens.41 They probably spotted most astronomical abnormalities, but did their observations get entered into the Register of the T’ai Shih Ling, the court official whose records were the source of the Han shu’s astronomical references?
Hans Bielenstein has made the case that, for a portent to get logged in the Register, high court officials had to be concerned enough about its astrological implications for the imperial order to make it the subject of a memorial to the emperor.42 However, Martin Kern has challenged this interpretation, arguing instead that all unusual events were made subjects of memorials to the emperor.43 If a portent was reported that caused alarm, it required action by the emperor to restore cosmic order by making edicts (as, for example, in 44 BC).
A few decades ago it was common for scholars of the Han dynasty to claim that astronomy and astrology had an essentially political function within China, being used as a tool by officials to manipulate the emperors.44 It was and sometimes still is believed that the astronomers would even stoop to falsifying celestial phenomena to achieve their ends.45 Scholars such as Dubs, however, have argued that this notion is inaccurate.46 For one thing, phenomena such as comets were difficult and dangerous to fabricate or try to hide.47 It is likely that court officials did seek to manipulate the emperor by means of comets, but by the interpretation they assigned to them, not by free invention of them.
In conclusion, the surviving Chinese comet records are manifestly very incomplete. It would therefore be most unwise to assume that, if the Bethlehem Star was a comet, the apparition would have been preserved in the extant Chinese astronomical records.
Appendix 2
The Meteor Storm of 6 BC
In our treatment of Revelation 12:1–5, because our focus was on the cometary apparition, we passed quickly over verses 3–4a. However, these verses merit closer inspection. They read, “And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great fire-colored1 dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven crowns.2 His tail dragged/swept3 a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth.”
Verses 3–4a should not be divorced from their subsequent context, which extends through to the end of the chapter and indeed all the way to the end of chapter 13. As we have already noted, these verses are clearly set apart from verses 1–2 not only by their content but also by the new introduction (“And another sign . . .”; v. 3). The events of verses 3ff. belong chronologically after those of verses 1–2 and, unlike them, are framed in terms of a great conflict of sovereignty. The celestial sign described in verses 3–4 belongs to the time after Virgo has begun “crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth” (v. 2) but before she has brought forth her child (v. 5).
Verse 4b locates the action of verses 3–4 in the latter stage of fetal expulsion, on the eve of the child’s birth. One must remember that this celestial play was unfolding during brief windows of time in advance of the Sun’s rising each morning. When therefore the dragon is said to stand before Virgo when she was “about to bring forth the child,” it almost certainly implies that the child was born on the following film frame, seen the next morning before dawn. If the birth occurred on October 20, 6 BC, the meteor storm would have taken place on October 19.
That what is described in verses 3–4 occurred while the celestial woman, playing the part of Israel, was giving birth is theologically significant. In the Hebrew Bible, Israel is envisioned as enduring labor pains in connection with the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2–34) and in connection with the establishment of the messianic kingdom on the earth at the end of the age (Hos. 13:13; Isa. 26:17–18; Mic. 4:10). Therefore the fact that verses 3–4 of Revelation 12 occur while the woman is giving birth provides a natural bridge between the events of 6 BC and the great tribulation immediately before the coming of the kingdom of God. As we shall see, verse 3 strongly alludes to Hebrew tradition regarding the world tyrant who persecutes the people of God during the great tribulation and is ultimately conquered by “one like a son of man,” namely the Messiah. We have already seen that Hydra (or the Serpent, in Babylon) is in view here. This massive constellation is located alongside the zodiacal constellations of Virgo and Leo, to their south. It is no surprise that Hydra is presented as a serpentine dragon. However, it is unexpected that the celestial dragon is fire-colored and has seven heads, seven crowns, and ten horns (v. 3). In addition, we are astonished that Hydra with its tail throws to the earth one third of the stars (v. 4).
Since a sign is, of course, something that is seen with the eyes, it is important to ask what caused the co
nstellation figure of Hydra to turn the color of fire, to look like it had seven heads and seven crowns, and ten horns on its heads, and to appear to throw countless stars toward the earth.
That a third of the stars seemed to be hurled to the earth can only refer to a great meteor storm.5
FIG. 14.1 The meteor storm of 1866 over Greenwich (Collection of Gerald H. Morris, London). Anonymous chromolithograph. From Agnes Giberne, Sun, Moon, and Stars: Astronomy for Beginners (New York: American Tract Society, 1880), opposite page 218.
In the words of Pete Bias,
A meteor storm is one of the most amazing natural spectacles seen on Earth. An intense storm of meteors may fill all sections of the sky with fireworks. Hundreds of meteors per minute can sometimes be seen, often accompanied by beautifully bright flashes and bursting meteors that are so remarkable that people are frightened or awestruck. . . .
Of course, meteor storms are a very rare phenomenon.6
Indeed they are. In the entire twentieth century there was a grand total of four meteor storms—two Draconid storms—1933 and 1946—and two Leonid storms—1966 and 1999.7 It is therefore an immeasurable privilege to see one.
In Revelation 12 the emphasis is on the extent and source of the meteor storm. One third of the stars seem to be thrown from Hydra’s tail. Modern meteor enthusiasts make records of the tracks of the meteors that they see during a given meteor shower. By extending all of the lines back and seeing where they converge, they can identify the radiant. During meteor storms, however, it is very easy to tell where the radiant is. In the wake of the Leonid meteor storm of November 13, 1833, many observers reported that the meteors were radiating from close to the star γ (Gamma) Leonis.8 Indeed it was the 1833 Leonid storm that prompted astronomers to realize that all meteor showers have radiants.9 With respect to the meteor storm that is described in Rev. 12:3–4 and that may be dated to 6 BC, attributing to Hydra’s tail the dragging and throwing of such a huge swath of stars strongly suggests that the meteors seemed to radiate out from it.