Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Pure Bollocks Issue 22_015
----------------------------
* F E A T U R E S *
----------------------------
* The Christmas Star * By Patrick Moore
Dec. 1989 Astronomy Now
Whenever Venus is a brilliant evening object around Christmas- time,
astronomers are always bombarded with one particular question: "Can
Venus have been the Star of Bethlehem? If not, what was that Star?"
It is best to say, quite frankly, that we do not know what the Star of
Bethlehem was. On the other hand, we can at least say what it wasn't -
and there is no chance that Venus could have been the cause. The reason
is obvious enough. Venus is a familiar sight; it has been known since
the dawn of human history - and if the Wise Men could have been taken in by
Venus, they would not have been very wise.
The real problem is that our information is hopelessly scanty. The star
is mentioned only once in the Bible: in the Gospel according to St.
Matthew, Chapter 2. Matthew tells us that the Wise Men from the East came
to Herod, saying "Where is he that has been born King of the Jews? for we
have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." Verses 7
to 10 run as follows:
"Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them
diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem,
and said, go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye
have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him
also.
"When they had heard the King, they departed; and lo, the star,
which they saw on the east, went before them, till it came and stood
over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced
with exceeding great joy."
That is all that St. Matthew tells us; the other Gospels do not mention
the star at all, and to make matters worse we are by no means certain about
our dates. There is one definite fact: Christ was not born on 25th
December A.D. 1. Our "A.D." dates are reckoned according to the
calculations of the Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus, who died around the year
556. He computed the date of Christ's birth to be 754 years after the
founding of Rome, and everyone since then has accepted his findings, though
they are certainly wrong. Christ was born before A.D. 1., and the most
likely date is B.C. 4, though with a possible error of a year or two either
way. Moreover, 25 December was not celebrated as Christmas Day until the
fourth century - by which time the real date had long since been forgotten,
so that our Christmas is wrong too.
There seems no hope of finding any new evidence, and so we must simply
make do with what we have. Venus can be dismissed out of hand. So, for
that matter, can Mars, Jupiter and all other planets and stars, because
they had already been charted and the planetary movements worked out.
If Venus, Mars or Jupiter had been particularly obtrusive, Herod would have
had to do no more than go and have a look. For a scientific
explanation, we must cast around for something unusual.
The old favourite, trotted out with monotonous regularity, is planetary
conjunction. When two planets pass close by each other the effect can be
quite spectacular, and there can be occultations; thus Saturn was
occulted by Mercury on 9 December 1808, and Jupiter by Venus on 3 January
1818. The next mutual occultations will be on 22nd November 2065 (Jupiter
occulted by Venus), 11 August 2079 (Mars by Mercury) and 27 October 2088 and
7 April 2094 (Jupiter by Mercury).
There were various planetary conjunctions around the probably time of
Christ's birth. The suggestion that this may be the origin of the Star of
Bethlehem story is old - it was proposed by C. Pritchard as long ago as 1856 -
and it is worth discussing in more detail here, because it has been recently
supported by Dr David W. Hughes of the University of Sheffield.
Of the planets, only three (Venus, Jupiter and Mars at its infrequent
best) are markedly superior to any of the stars. Mercury we can discount
in this context; though its magnitude may surpass that of Sirius, it can
never be seen against a dark background. Saturn can attain magnitude -0.3
when it is at its most favourable opposition with the rung-system wide open.
This is rather brighter than Vega, Capella or even Alpha Centauri, but well
below Sirius or Canopus.
There was a close conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in 1975, and
certainly the view was impressive - but it was not of brief duration, and any
skilled star gazers, as the Wise Men certainly were, would have recognised it
for what it was.
In 1987 there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Mars, which again was
quite impressive even though Mars, which again was quite impressive,was
only of magnitude 1.1 (rather fainter than stars such as Aldebaran or
Antares). It may be significant, however, that neither of these
conjunctions aroused much interest except upon the astronomically-minded
members of the general public.
Hughes - and, before him, in 1957, the German writer Stauffe - believe
that the Star of Bethlehem was due to a triple conjunction of
Jupiter and Saturn in the year BC 7. To quote Hughes' paper (Nature, vol
264, pp 513-7, 1976): "All in all, Jupiter and Saturn have orbital
periodicities of 12 and 29 years respectively, so Jupiter on average passes
Saturn every 20 years. About every 120 years, three successive conjunctions
take place over about 6 months, this being known as a triple or great
conjunction. Such a conjunction will occur every 120 years and a similar one
would have occurred in 7 BC. On May 29, September 29 and December 4, 7 BC, a
conjunction occurred in the constellation of Pisces, which is astrologically
associated with the Jewish people." On May 29 the two planets were less
than 1 degree apart.
THe theory sounds attractive, and certainly it cannot be dismissed
out of hand, but it is fair to say that there are various objections to
it. First, there is the time scale. It is generally assumed by Biblical
experts that Christ was born around the year BC 4. Whether this is correct
or not is a matter for debate; on the whole it seems that BC 7, the year of
the triple conjunction, may be rather too early, but it is true that we
cannot be sure, because our whole chronology of this period is so uncertain.
More important is the appearance of the triple conjunction itself.
Jupiter is brilliant, but no rival Venus and as we have seen, Saturn can
never become much brighter than magnitude zero. Though the two planets
would be prominent, they would certainly not be startling; and again, the
Wise Men would have known about the conjunction, on the reasonable
assumption that they were astrologers. And thirdly, the triple conjunction
was a long-drawn out affair, extending over the best part of a year all
told, whereas the Biblical inference is that it was a one off phenomenon.
With great respect to the eminent astronomers who support the theory, I
must admit that I have not the slightest faith in it, because it falls on
almost every count. Even before our own time, it was proposed by no less
a person that Johanne Kepler, and no doubt it will be revived again and
again in the years to come, but I am bound to agree with the opinion
expressed in 1908 by E.W. Maunder in his classic book 'The Astronomy
Of The Bible': "A similar and closer conjunction occurred 59 years
earlier, and should therefore have brought a Magian deputation to Judea then.
Next, that the two planets never approached each other nearer than twice
the apparent diameter of the Moon, so that they would have appeared not
as one star but two. And thirdly, if the planets had seemed to stand over
Bethlehem as the Wise Men left Jerusalem, they would most assuredly not
have appeared to do so when they arrived at the little city.
Ingenious as the suggestion was, it may be dismissed as unworthy of serious
consideration. The next candidate is our old friend Halley's Comet, which
has been so much to the fore in recent years. It returns every 76 years
(give or take a few years either way), and it can be brilliant, despite its
poor showing in 1985-6. Halley's Comet came to perihelion in BC 12, on
October 10, and was observed from 26th October of that year, but we can
certainly rule it out. For one thing, it was reasonably well documented.
Secondly, it was too early. Christ was almost certainly born well before
BC 12.
It must be conceded that our records of other comets around that period
are not complete, and there may have been a bright one in BC 5. Even within
the past century or two there have been comets brilliant enough to be seen in
broad daylight, and some have even cast shadows, though they have been
depressingly rare in recent times; nobody can remember a comet to rival
those of, say 1811, 1843, 1861, or 1882. But the same objections apply,
and the fragmentary description we have of the star of Bethlehem lends
absolutely no support to the idea that it could have been a comet.
What, then, about a nova or supernova? Initially this sounds much more
promising, and we know that several galactic supernova have been seen over
the past thousand years. The outburst of 1054, which has left the crab
nebula became bright enough to be visible in broad daylight; so did the
supernova of 1572 (Tycho's Star) and that of 1604 (Kepler's Star). All
these seem to have been outshone by the admittedly fragmentary reports
which have come down to us, the Lupus Star may have rivalled the quarter-
moon. On those grounds, a supernova would be a good candidate for the
Star of Bethlehem, but there are two fatal objections. First, it would
have persisted for along time - weeks at least, more probably months. And of
course, it would have been reported by contemporary astronomers, but nothing
of the sort has come down to us. Moreover, it would have been plainly
visible at the time when the Wise Men were in Jerusalem.
An ordinary nova might fill the bill, because the period of visibility
would possibly have been briefer; remember the last bright nova, in Cygnus,
which rocketed to the first magnitude, but within a week had faded to below
naked-eye visibility. Yet surely it would have been mentioned elsewhere,
and as with our other candidates, the contemporary records are silent.
Planets, comets, nova and supernova have failed us; so what is left? If
we are looking for something which moves, I think instinctively of an
aurora, but aurora are very seldom seen in latitudes as low as as that of
Jerusalem (though, admittedly, an aurora was once recorded from Singapore,
only about a degree from the equator). But in this case the description
given by St. Matthew would have been hopelessly wrong, and it is
very difficult to believe that an auroral display could have been
involved.
About 30 years ago, in a television Sky At Night programme, I put forward
another idea, though I cannot claim to have much confidence it it. Can
St. Matthew's report relate to two meteors?
If the Wise Men saw one brilliant fireball travelling eastward,
they might well take it as some sort of sign; and if another fireball
followed later, taking much the same course, they could have regarded the
miracle as confirmed. This would explain the eastward motion, and also why
only the Wise Men saw the phenomenon at all.
I doubt whether many people will take this explanation any better than
I do, but - well, what else can one say? The chances of finding any new
evidence seem to be effectively nil. Until the end of time, that Star of
Bethlehem will remain a fascinating enigma.
-------------------------------------------------------
