Posted on 12/20/2007 3:32:58 PM PST by shield
FORT WORTH (CBS 11 News) ― The Star of Bethlehem has befuddled scholars throughout the ages. Now, a Texas law professor claims to have scientific proof that the Star was real, and not purely biblical myth. He has another major discovery as well, which resulted from his study of the Star.
Texas A&M adjunct law professor Frederick Larson began researching the Star after putting up a nativity scene for his daughter. The lawyer in him, Larson said, required him to investigate what it was that he was putting up in his front yard. Beginning with the book of Matthew, he ended up on a decade-long odyssey into astronomy.
Larson is emphatic in saying that, although his quest was initially faith-driven, it became much more. "If I'm going to make a star hypothesis," he said, "I want to know, what did it do? Was it an angel? Was it a comet? Was it a myth?"
Although his story begins with one man's journey into the skies, it ends an unfathomable truth for some, that Larson said will change the way the world sees the Star of Bethlehem forever.
The Star of Bethlehem echoes the symphonic sounds of verses like "a star, a star, twinkles in the night" and "these three Kings of Orient are," along with oil masterpieces like 'The Adoration of the Magi.'
These pieces tell a story laid out in the Gospels. "Behold… where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We have come to worship him (Matthew: Chapter 2)." This is a quintessential verse pointed to by scholars, of the Magi being led by a star to the Christ child, the King of the Jews, as they approached King Herod for direction to His location in Jerusalem more than 2,000 years ago.
Based on the three laws of planetary motion by German mathematician and physicist Johannes Kepler, Larson developed a video presentation using modern-day software. This new software can pinpoint events in the sky for any day of any year.
Larson first had to approximate the death of King Herod, which, based on the writings of ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, most scholars presume to be about 4 B.C. But Larson said he found a recent discovery that states a printing error occurred in the 14th Century. The error had incorrectly printed Josephus' presumption of Herod's death. This caused scholars to look at the wrong date in researching the Star of Bethlehem. "All the oldest manuscripts, before 1544, are consistent with Herod having died in 1 B.C.," Larson said. "That opens up the possibility for us to look in the years 2 and 3 B.C. There, the sky explodes!"
Many scholars have hypothesized the conjunction of planets theory before, but Larson said that alone might not have been anything spectacular to stargazers 2,000 years ago.
Something did happen, however, that was much more profound -- a triple conjunction of Jupiter, Venus and the star Regulus on April 3, 2 B.C., and a new moon. "What you had was two stars stacked on top of each other," Larson explained. "To an observer, it appeared to be the brightest star anyone had ever seen." Larson described it as an astronomical event that hasn't happened again in the 20th Century.
Larson also hedges much of his hypothesis on the existence of this Star phenomenon on nine points taken from Matthew. This includes: it rose in the east, it endured over time (eliminating that it could have been a comet or a meteor) and that it stopped over the place where the Christ child was born.
The last point has driven many people away from the idea that a Star of Bethlehem ever existed, but Larson said, although it is astronomically impossible for a star to "stop" over something, it did because of something called retrograde motion. "Wandering stars move around in a field of fixed stars, causing it to appear as though they're moving," Larson said. The Star would've appeared to move and stop.
Larson has come up against rigorous criticism from the scientific community for what they see as a religious approach to a scientific issue.
SMU adjunct professor of astronomy and physics John Cotton said Larson's approach is flawed, in part because he did not research ancient astrology. Cotton points to the work of modern-day astronomer Michael Molnar, who spent three years researching ancient astrologers to arrive at his Star hypothesis.
For starters, Cotton said, Molnar begins with the presumption of the time of Christ's birth as more plausible in 6 B.C., as the skies look much different in that year. He said that ancient astrologers and astronomers, such as what the Magi were said to have been, would have been in tune with the symbolism of the stars. Molnar puts the Star in line with Aries the Ram versus Larson's Leo theory.
Cotton said, "If it fits what you know, with the Matthew story, and it fits the ancient astrology then it's a reasonable candidate. [Larson's work] is nothing new because it was proposed years ago."
Other religious scholars said that there is no real consensus as to the exact time of birth or death of Jesus, thereby making any hypothesis on the Star of Bethlehem irrelevant.
According to biblical scholar Bruce Alan Killian, if one were to go by the astrology of the times as Cotton asserts, "Venus, called the wandering star by ancients, rose before sunrise on August 24, 2 B.C. and fulfilled prophecies in Jacob. Jesus called himself the bright morning star (Revelations 22:16)."
Looking at Larson's hypothesis of Venus rising as a conjunction with Jupiter (the King planet) and Regulus (the King star), and the fact that Jacob calls Judah a lion in Genesis 49:9-10, according to Larson, "You can choose to see what you want, but, from the symbolic perspective, I see King, King, King everywhere."
Larson admits that he is riding on the backs of many great historians, scientists and scholars with his work, but added, "You begin by unearthing everything that's already been discovered and add to it." He said he respects and appreciates many great names in science on this subject, including the work of Molnar.
On the issue of adding value to the existing research, Larson said, "I resist just being a storyteller. What is new is the poem. The poem is a new discovery and it is striking." The poem is, in theory, an arch of symbolic celestial and astronomical events, Larson said, that began with the Star and a new moon at Christ's conception or birth.
Larson's presentation does, however, bring the Star of Bethlehem to life. His project brings color and clarity to a subject often too complicated and detailed for the layman to understand. If you are interested in seeing a purely scientific approach, the Museum of Natural Science at Fair Park will have their "Mystery of the Star" exhibit beginning December 3rd and running through the 21st.
The information posted there is the basis for his presentation and is somewhat complicated and wordy. Rick makes it much more interesting in his presentation.
It gives a whole new meaning to Christmas for me. He takes you from the star over Bethlehem to the Day of the Cross and back it up with fact and science.
Where does he do his presentation?
I thought that was Asimov
Hmmm. . .
a ) I don’t think God was busy dealing in astrology; and
b ) the celestial event was apparently not visible to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who became expectant and excited when told that the star had been seen; ergo, it doesn’t appear to have been something that everybody clearly saw.
See post #20 that gives the link to that site.
See post #20, that his site...it gives the different presentation times.
Those aggies you gotta love em.... or is it gig em?
I’m having a bit of trouble relating your comments to my recommendation of a short story by Arthur Clarke
Right. But a conjunction of one or more planets with a single star can occur several different times over a period of months or a couple of years -- due to the phenomenon called "retrograde motion" where planets appear to reverse the direction of their orbit around the sun (due to changes in the motion of these planets relative to the motion of the earth).
And there's no reference anywhere in the New Testament to a star or group of stars sitting in one place in the sky for months on end. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the magi did not use the so-called "Star of Bethlehem" to guide them to Bethlehem. They didn't need a star to guide them anywhere.
1. Set your location to Bethlehem (in the Mid East, not Pennsylvania...)
2. Set the date to August 12, 3 B.C.
3. Set the time to 4:30 a.m.
4. Look East
5. You should see a bright star just above the horizon.
6. Turn on planet labels. The bright star is really Venus and Jupiter in conjunction.
A favorite segment, more so today than those decades ago:
God has no need to justify His actions to man. He who built the universe can destroy it when He chooses. It is arrogance--it is perilously near blasphemy--for us to say what He may or may not do. .
And I would add: "or just how He may do it."
Even the inhabitants of Jerusalem of that time would not have been as familiar with the night sky as eastern astrologers. Something that might not be all that obvious as something unusual, would look quite " out of place" to those who really studied the night sky".
As far as the "star" remaining stationary over Bethlehem, I suspect that is a little literary license, or misunderstanding of the way such events are spoken of, and whatever it was merely appeared in the same place relative to the other stars for a long time, which I tend to think discredits the conjunction hypothesis, especially involving Venus. Jupiter and/or Saturn and a "background star", perhaps.
Skymap has Jupiter and Regulus together on the night of Apr 2, 2 B.C. but no Venus. Venus, Mars, and Saturn are fairly close as well. Hmm....
Yes indeed...the arrogance of man...he’s in for a surprise.
I don't believe it. Fired up my Starry Night and set it for that date. There was a new moon on April 5th (April 3rd wasn't fully new yet). Jupiter is pretty close to Regulus but not a conjunction. Venus was almost at the horizon and in Auriga while Jupiter was in Leo (near Regulus).
Now new moon and Jupiter near but not conjuncted with Regulus could be errors in calculations. However with Venus being basically in a completely different sector that blows his "finding" out of the water.
I still consider the Star of Bethlehem to be a comet (which would last in visible sky for a week or so) or other temporary celestial occurance like a very bright supernova (which would only last a few days).
Should have read thread first. Recalibrating. Be right back.
You sound like someone who believes this legend. Tell me, even if I give you the existence of Jesus (I don’t), and even if the miracles and all that were true (I believe the whole thing is legend), who was sitting around about the time of his birth saying, “I ought to take note of this stuff, this kid’s definitely going to be worth writing about!”???
Much closer to what the article describes but too close to the sun. It would only be visible for a few hours in the day before the sun came up, and not visible at all over night as Jupiter/Venus don’t rise till shortly before sun up and go down before the sun does.
If you go to the website www.starofbethlehem.net there's a link on the first page, click it and it gives the dates, locations and times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.