What do you think?
Rate this book
The Star of Bethlehem Mystery
287 page paperback published in 1979 and reprinted in 1980, a book about the Star of Bethlehem, a message in the sky.
256 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1980
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 22, 2023
AN ASTRONOMER ARGUES FOR THE ‘TRIPLE CONJUNCTION’ HYPOTHESIS
Astronomer and author David Hughes wrote the Introduction to this 1979 book, “What was the star of Bethlehem? Did it really exist?... the star of Bethlehem is a mystery. If it did exist, then it is one of the most amazing phenomena ever witnessed by man… theories vary from a nova or supernova to a comet, from a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation Pisces to Venus… Even the possibility that the star was simply a legend has to be taken seriously. At the other extreme, an explanation in terms of a miracle beyond the scope of science also has its advocates. This book is an investigation into the astronomical, biblical, historical, religious and astrological evidence about the star. It asks a whole series of questions and works out the answers as far as possible… for example… How did the star appear twice? What is the meaning of its rising in the east? Why did Herod the Great and all the other inhabitants of Jerusalem fail to see it? Numerous other questions arise. Who were the wise men and what sort of people were they?... If, as I argue, the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter of Pisces is the most probable contender, what are the scientific facts weighing against the rival theories?... How relevant is Babylonian and Jewish astrology?”
He continues, “When it comes to the idea of the star as just a legend or a miracle, we must ask ourselves how significant were the reported occurrences of other celestial phenomena at the birth and death of kings and gods in ancient times. Did wise men visit other rulers at that time? A great deal of our evidence comes from biblical accounts, but we must ask how accurate they are in terms of science and astronomy. It we are to attach so much weight to what the Bible says about star of Bethlehem, how do we square this with the presence of midrash or legend elsewhere in the Bible?”
In the first chapter, he states, “Matthew 2:9 contains one of the stumbling blocks of all astronomical ‘star of Bethlehem’ theories. It is said that the star ‘went before’ the wise men. Up to now the story of the Magi is noteworthy for its air of historical probability. There is the expectation of a world redeemer or, in the narrower Palestinian sense, the expectation of a Jewish Messiah. Many elements in the story---the interest of eastern Magi, their presence in the west to pay homage to the new Savior… are reasonable historical assertions. One detail, however, has a strong legendary and mythical atmosphere: the star which moved before the Magi as they traveled to Bethlehem and then hovered over the house in which the child lay. It is possible that the author of Matthew was exercising poetic license… It is… extremely unlikely that he intended the account to be taken as a bold statement of fact… When the Magi arrived the star ‘stood over’ the place where the young child was. In astronomical parlance this means that the star was in the zenith … directly overhead, above the observer.” (Pg. 7-8)
He continues, “What can we now say about the expression ‘stood over’ in Matthew 2:9? The problem here is that any star or planet is an ‘astronomical’ distance away from Earth… For the ‘star’ to pick out an individual building it must hover above the rooftops, which is something no astronomical star does… Furthermore, the star reappeared and pointed out to them the way to Bethlehem. This reappearance of the star is important as it rules out certain astronomical phenomena that occur only once and are never repeated.” (Pg. 9-11)
He summarizes, “We are left with the strong conviction that Matthew’s description of the star is basically correct. We can now list the facts that have emerged: 1. The star was first seen by the wise men when they were in the east. 2. It was observed at its acronychal rising. 3. At this time it had a distinct astrological meaning. 4. It disappeared as they journeyed to Jerusalem. 5. It was so insignificant that Herod and all Jerusalem had overlooked it. 6. The same star appeared again when they were in Jerusalem and then went before them and ‘stood over’ Bethlehem.” (Pg. 21-22)
He argues, “As time passed and the new religion of Christianity spread around the shores of the Mediterranean the descriptions of the star became more and more exaggerated and fanciful. The almost mundane star of Matthew later came to be described as the star that ‘out-shone all the celestial lights.’ This transformation probably came about because of the desire on the part of the bishops and apologists to given the birth of Jesus a certain status… It was felt to be difficult to reconcile the birth of Jesus, King of Kings… with the advent of an average star.” (Pg. 33)
He asserts, “We can conclude that 25 December … has no special merit over any of the others… The Epiphany celebration of the Magi’s visit again produces absolutely no proof that 6 January was the actual date on which they paid homage. We must therefore regard Christmas Day, 25 December, as the official rather than the actual birthday of Jesus. The date of the real event is still shrouded in mystery. Can the star of Bethlehem help?” (Pg. 124)
He states, “From our historical investigation of the time of the birth of Christ we can conclude that the second appearance of the star, which led the Magi from Jerusalem to the newborn baby Jesus at Bethlehem, occurred in 7 BC. If we consider all the possible errors inherent in the calculation we must extend the possible birth period to one between early 8 BC and late 6 BC.” (Pg. 126)
He acknowledges, “Although Saturn and Jupiter and their triple conjunction fit most of the requisites of the ‘star of Bethlehem’ and are in my opinion at the top of the list of likely candidates, the fact that they could never have been seen as ‘one star’ leaves a feeling of uncertainty, even if the problems of the Greek text are overcome.” (Pg. 167)
He summarizes, “All the objects and phenomena mentioned in this chapter, including zodiacal light, must be ruled out because of their lack of astrological significance. They have no attributes what would relate them directly to the King of the Jews or, to be more specific, to his birth. We must remember that the star of Bethlehem must have been unusual and probably appeared twice, and this means that most of the objects mentioned above remain ineligible. The triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter remains the best candidate for the star.” (Pg. 230)
He adds, “We have … ample justification for concluding that the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in Pisces had a strong, clear astrological message. To Babylonians and Jews alike it heralded the coming of the Messiah… The message was unambiguous and obviously impressed the Magi with the importance of the event and the necessity to journey to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It is also clear that it was only the Jupiter-Saturn-Pisces conjunction that had this message. All other astronomical occurrences around the time of the birth of Jesus were irrelevant in the quest for the Messiah, and this alone is ample justification for ruling them out as candidates for the role of star of Bethlehem.” (Pg. 243-244)
He states, “The star was therefore most probably the sequence of Jupiter-Saturn events in 7 BC. Jesus was probably born in mid September 7 BC. This date is consistent with the New Testament passages and fits the date of astronomy and history… it is possible to arrive at an even more precise date.” (Pg. 250)
He concludes, “the rival explanations of the star of Bethlehem are these: (1) It was an actual physical object, explicable by scientific law. (2) It was a miracle, an invention of God for his own specific purposes. (3) It was a literary invention, a midrash, the author of Matthew making up the appearance of the star to convince his Jewish-Christian audience that Jesus was the true Messiah. I am convinced that the first of these three explanations is the correct one. The second is theologically weak because it requires a miracle when none was needed. Of course we cannot say that a miracle did not happen, only that it was not needed, as a perfectly natural phenomenon occurred that fits in with all the information given in the source books. The third explanation, in terms of midrash, is also unacceptable. Far from being just a figment of Matthew’s imagination or an invention to tie in with old legends and an embellishment to make the birth of Jesus seemingly more important, Matthew’s nativity reads like a simple tale well told. It has the ring of truth. In particular, the simplicity of the star, its obvious ordinariness, shows that it cannot be merely a figment of a fertile imagination.” (Pg. 255-256)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the Star of Bethlehem.
Astronomer and author David Hughes wrote the Introduction to this 1979 book, “What was the star of Bethlehem? Did it really exist?... the star of Bethlehem is a mystery. If it did exist, then it is one of the most amazing phenomena ever witnessed by man… theories vary from a nova or supernova to a comet, from a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation Pisces to Venus… Even the possibility that the star was simply a legend has to be taken seriously. At the other extreme, an explanation in terms of a miracle beyond the scope of science also has its advocates. This book is an investigation into the astronomical, biblical, historical, religious and astrological evidence about the star. It asks a whole series of questions and works out the answers as far as possible… for example… How did the star appear twice? What is the meaning of its rising in the east? Why did Herod the Great and all the other inhabitants of Jerusalem fail to see it? Numerous other questions arise. Who were the wise men and what sort of people were they?... If, as I argue, the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter of Pisces is the most probable contender, what are the scientific facts weighing against the rival theories?... How relevant is Babylonian and Jewish astrology?”
He continues, “When it comes to the idea of the star as just a legend or a miracle, we must ask ourselves how significant were the reported occurrences of other celestial phenomena at the birth and death of kings and gods in ancient times. Did wise men visit other rulers at that time? A great deal of our evidence comes from biblical accounts, but we must ask how accurate they are in terms of science and astronomy. It we are to attach so much weight to what the Bible says about star of Bethlehem, how do we square this with the presence of midrash or legend elsewhere in the Bible?”
In the first chapter, he states, “Matthew 2:9 contains one of the stumbling blocks of all astronomical ‘star of Bethlehem’ theories. It is said that the star ‘went before’ the wise men. Up to now the story of the Magi is noteworthy for its air of historical probability. There is the expectation of a world redeemer or, in the narrower Palestinian sense, the expectation of a Jewish Messiah. Many elements in the story---the interest of eastern Magi, their presence in the west to pay homage to the new Savior… are reasonable historical assertions. One detail, however, has a strong legendary and mythical atmosphere: the star which moved before the Magi as they traveled to Bethlehem and then hovered over the house in which the child lay. It is possible that the author of Matthew was exercising poetic license… It is… extremely unlikely that he intended the account to be taken as a bold statement of fact… When the Magi arrived the star ‘stood over’ the place where the young child was. In astronomical parlance this means that the star was in the zenith … directly overhead, above the observer.” (Pg. 7-8)
He continues, “What can we now say about the expression ‘stood over’ in Matthew 2:9? The problem here is that any star or planet is an ‘astronomical’ distance away from Earth… For the ‘star’ to pick out an individual building it must hover above the rooftops, which is something no astronomical star does… Furthermore, the star reappeared and pointed out to them the way to Bethlehem. This reappearance of the star is important as it rules out certain astronomical phenomena that occur only once and are never repeated.” (Pg. 9-11)
He summarizes, “We are left with the strong conviction that Matthew’s description of the star is basically correct. We can now list the facts that have emerged: 1. The star was first seen by the wise men when they were in the east. 2. It was observed at its acronychal rising. 3. At this time it had a distinct astrological meaning. 4. It disappeared as they journeyed to Jerusalem. 5. It was so insignificant that Herod and all Jerusalem had overlooked it. 6. The same star appeared again when they were in Jerusalem and then went before them and ‘stood over’ Bethlehem.” (Pg. 21-22)
He argues, “As time passed and the new religion of Christianity spread around the shores of the Mediterranean the descriptions of the star became more and more exaggerated and fanciful. The almost mundane star of Matthew later came to be described as the star that ‘out-shone all the celestial lights.’ This transformation probably came about because of the desire on the part of the bishops and apologists to given the birth of Jesus a certain status… It was felt to be difficult to reconcile the birth of Jesus, King of Kings… with the advent of an average star.” (Pg. 33)
He asserts, “We can conclude that 25 December … has no special merit over any of the others… The Epiphany celebration of the Magi’s visit again produces absolutely no proof that 6 January was the actual date on which they paid homage. We must therefore regard Christmas Day, 25 December, as the official rather than the actual birthday of Jesus. The date of the real event is still shrouded in mystery. Can the star of Bethlehem help?” (Pg. 124)
He states, “From our historical investigation of the time of the birth of Christ we can conclude that the second appearance of the star, which led the Magi from Jerusalem to the newborn baby Jesus at Bethlehem, occurred in 7 BC. If we consider all the possible errors inherent in the calculation we must extend the possible birth period to one between early 8 BC and late 6 BC.” (Pg. 126)
He acknowledges, “Although Saturn and Jupiter and their triple conjunction fit most of the requisites of the ‘star of Bethlehem’ and are in my opinion at the top of the list of likely candidates, the fact that they could never have been seen as ‘one star’ leaves a feeling of uncertainty, even if the problems of the Greek text are overcome.” (Pg. 167)
He summarizes, “All the objects and phenomena mentioned in this chapter, including zodiacal light, must be ruled out because of their lack of astrological significance. They have no attributes what would relate them directly to the King of the Jews or, to be more specific, to his birth. We must remember that the star of Bethlehem must have been unusual and probably appeared twice, and this means that most of the objects mentioned above remain ineligible. The triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter remains the best candidate for the star.” (Pg. 230)
He adds, “We have … ample justification for concluding that the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in Pisces had a strong, clear astrological message. To Babylonians and Jews alike it heralded the coming of the Messiah… The message was unambiguous and obviously impressed the Magi with the importance of the event and the necessity to journey to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It is also clear that it was only the Jupiter-Saturn-Pisces conjunction that had this message. All other astronomical occurrences around the time of the birth of Jesus were irrelevant in the quest for the Messiah, and this alone is ample justification for ruling them out as candidates for the role of star of Bethlehem.” (Pg. 243-244)
He states, “The star was therefore most probably the sequence of Jupiter-Saturn events in 7 BC. Jesus was probably born in mid September 7 BC. This date is consistent with the New Testament passages and fits the date of astronomy and history… it is possible to arrive at an even more precise date.” (Pg. 250)
He concludes, “the rival explanations of the star of Bethlehem are these: (1) It was an actual physical object, explicable by scientific law. (2) It was a miracle, an invention of God for his own specific purposes. (3) It was a literary invention, a midrash, the author of Matthew making up the appearance of the star to convince his Jewish-Christian audience that Jesus was the true Messiah. I am convinced that the first of these three explanations is the correct one. The second is theologically weak because it requires a miracle when none was needed. Of course we cannot say that a miracle did not happen, only that it was not needed, as a perfectly natural phenomenon occurred that fits in with all the information given in the source books. The third explanation, in terms of midrash, is also unacceptable. Far from being just a figment of Matthew’s imagination or an invention to tie in with old legends and an embellishment to make the birth of Jesus seemingly more important, Matthew’s nativity reads like a simple tale well told. It has the ring of truth. In particular, the simplicity of the star, its obvious ordinariness, shows that it cannot be merely a figment of a fertile imagination.” (Pg. 255-256)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the Star of Bethlehem.
September 10, 2017
One of my reading interests is nonfiction. I got a used copy of this book from the Newberry Library Book Fair held this past July.
In this book, the author, who is an astronomer, considers three revival explanations of the star of Bethlehem:
1. It was an actual physical object, explicable by scientific law.
2. It was a miracle, an intervention by God.
3. It was a literary invention, a midrash, the author of Matthew making up the appearance of the star to convince his Jewish-Christian audience that Jesus was the true Messiah.
The author utilizes astronomy, astrological lore, history, and Biblical scholarship to argue--in my mind convincingly--for explanation #1.
There are, however, various opinions among those who argue for explanation #1. Opinions among this group on the celestial event range from : it was a comet; it was a nova; it was a planetary conjunction. The author argues that it was the movements of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces in 7 BC.
In this book, the author, who is an astronomer, considers three revival explanations of the star of Bethlehem:
1. It was an actual physical object, explicable by scientific law.
2. It was a miracle, an intervention by God.
3. It was a literary invention, a midrash, the author of Matthew making up the appearance of the star to convince his Jewish-Christian audience that Jesus was the true Messiah.
The author utilizes astronomy, astrological lore, history, and Biblical scholarship to argue--in my mind convincingly--for explanation #1.
There are, however, various opinions among those who argue for explanation #1. Opinions among this group on the celestial event range from : it was a comet; it was a nova; it was a planetary conjunction. The author argues that it was the movements of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces in 7 BC.
Read
January 3, 2014proper title: The Star Of Bethlehem - An Astronomer's Confirmation
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews