Until about 50 years ago, most people did not
seriously question the accuracy of this text for fear of sounding
irreligious somewhat akin to linking the Mass with cannibalism. But now
we can speculate freely about this mysterious star, especially since
Matthew says later that ``lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went
before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.''
Really! What an extraordinary way for a star to
behave! True, we have learned that stars can do some pretty strange
things. They can collapse and become invisible. They can explode and
become, for a few weeks, the fourth brightest object in the sky (barring
the Sun, the Moon and the planet Venus.) They can suddenly become much
brighter and then fade back to dimness. They can spin around thousands
of times per second, becoming clocks so accurate that they will not gain
or lose a second in five million years.
But visibly rushing across the heavens and then
stopping dead over one spot, like a sort of cosmic racing car whose
brakes have been slammed on? No star can behave like this. According to
Newton, an object in space can only change its course or speed if
``acted on by a force.'' And according to Einstein, nothing can exceed
the speed of light which, if Matthew is to be believed, the Star of
Bethlehem would have had to do. Matthew's account just doesn't convince.
In the words of the astronomer David Hughes of Sheffield University:
``Astronomical objects are a huge distance away, and do not wander in
front of people and point out a specific house in a small village like
Bethlehem.''
I once saw a cartoon in the New Yorker that
showed the Star as an alien spaceship in which two little green men with
spiky heads were looking down at the Wise Men and saying: ``Who are
those guys and why are they following us?''
This scenario would fit the facts, but in the absence
of evidence we must look elsewhere. A common suggestion is that the Star
was in fact the giant planet Jupiter emerging from behind the Moon after
an eclipse, Jupiter symbolising royalty through being the ``king'' of
planets.
Michael R. Molnar, in his book The Star of Bethlehem:
The Legacy of the Magi, gets very excited about this idea. He claims
that ``sophisticated computer calculations'' show that the Moon eclipsed
Jupiter on the night of April 17, 6 BC. (The year of Christ's birth,
long thought to be 4 BC because of an ancient error in recording the
date of the foundation of Rome, has now been pushed back a further two
years.)
But there is some mistake here. My own computer in
the form of some much-praised astronomical software called Starry Night
Deluxe does not show anything of the kind. It was a moonless night in
Jerusalem.
Another idea is a conjunction an apparent coming
together of Jupiter and the ringed planet Saturn. This happens at
intervals of about 20 years, and makes a spectacular sight when as this
year the two brilliant planets are joined by the bright star Aldebaran,
making a tight little blazing triangle of light.
But could not the Star of Bethlehem have been a
comet? Comets, are utterly unlike other celestial objects. Their vast
tails seems to stretch across the sky as if pointing at some place on
the ground.
Many comets appeared around this time. They were
believed to herald the births and deaths of princes. One appeared at
Julius Caesar's death in 44 BC, and another just before the emperor
Claudius's death in 54 AD although how this comet ``knew'' that
Claudius's wife was planning to poison him must remain a mystery.
Halley's Comet appeared in 12 BC, somewhat early to be the Star of
Bethlehem, and Chinese astronomers recorded one in 5 BC, a year too
late.
But comets, eclipses, conjunctions, a massive stellar
brightening; they all, as an explanation of the Star, suffer from one
fatal flaw: Matthew's is the only gospel which mentions its appearance.
Mark, Luke and John have nothing to say on the subject!
This circumstance is highly suspicious. If, in a
court case, three out of four witnesses have no recollection of an
incident, then the jury would surely have to assume that the incident
did not take place.
And what of other witnesses? If any extraordinary
object appeared in the skies in 6 BC, then surely someone in Arabia or
Judaea, someone in the Roman Empire, would have recorded the fact. Rome
was full of astrologers who peered at the night sky and drew weird
conclusions from presumably accurate data.
And they saw nothing that would account for the Star.
We are forced to the conclusion that there was no Star of Bethlehem, and
that either the Wise Men or Matthew invented the story.
Why would anyone invent such a story? While being
obvious scientific and historical nonsense, it is ingenious fiction. It
fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam in the Book of Numbers (24:17),
that ``there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise
out of Israel.'' And as any good politician knows, if you promise a
portent you had better produce one.
But what makes the Star story really fascinating is
the effect it has had on academics. For half a century they have been
rushing about, poking into this clue and that, producing ever more
ingenious theories, while all the time, like Poe's purloined letter,
there was nothing there. The solution to the mystery of the Star of
Bethlehem is that there is no mystery.
