The Star of Bethlehem

Rating:
Summary: A Nova as the Star of Bethlehem
Review: In this book Kidger gives an interesting survey of the various theories concerning 'the star', largely from the point of view of modern science and astrophysics. My own feeling is that he gives too much weight to the way we see things today, and not enough to the world-view of the magi-astrologers that were around when Christ was born. This lack of balance leads him to support the theory that the star of the magi was a nova. A nova is a certain type of star, that, as seen from earth, is not spectacular in terms of its brightness, but then quite suddenly, over a period of days, it increases its brightness considerably. Over the next few days, months and years, it gradually fades back to something like its former brightness. A supernova is an even more spectacular type of exploding star, with a brightness increase 1 000 times more than that of an ordinary nova. The nova/supernova hypothesis is not new. In December 1987, THE TIMES carried an article which discussed the nova hypothesis for 'the star'. It was based on an article by Richard Stephenson which had appeared in the December issue of PHYSICS BULLETIN. Stephenson had proposed that the star was a supernova explosion, since his own research into the astronomy of the Far East showed that two such events had been recorded by Chinese astronomers in 4 BC and 5 BC. A letter written by me, stating my objections to Stephenson's proposal, was published in PHYSICS BULLETIN in March 1988. A full discussion of this and other theories will be found in my recent book THE BIRTH OF CHRIST EXPLODING THE MYTH (VIRGIN JUNE 1999). Here I just want to draw attention to the main point I made in my letter, and which I reiterate in my book. The nova hypothesis ignores the world view of antiquity. In ancient times the sphere of the stars was considered to be the region of perfection, and according to this world view, stars did not very their brightnesses, and so novae could not exist. Consequently, there are hardly any recordings of novae in the west, and this is why Stephenson and his colleagues had to search Chinese and Korean records to find two that could fit the bill. Even several centuries later, the supernova explosion, recorded by the Chinese, which gave rise to the feature now called the Crab Nebula, was still not recorded in the west. It was only in 1572, with Tycho Brahe's discovery of a supernova, that this Aristotelian world-view was finally shattered.

Rating:
Summary: The Star will open your eyes to the sky.
Review: Mr. Kidger's words open a whole new world to the reader. Whether you think the star is a hoax or a supernatural phenomenon, what he has to say will have you looking at the sky in a whole new way. After I read it I couldn't wait to go out and watch an eclipse, look for a comet, or just look at the stars. I even called my parents to see if they still had the telescope they bought me when I was a child. The book does a good job of presenting several views of what the "Star" could have been. Mr. Kidger doesn't expect you to believe that he is right in his conclusions, instead he gives the reader the opportunity to see many points of view. Like a good teacher, Mr. Kidger makes a conclusion from his research but makes it in such a way that the reader (student) wants to learn more. The only reason that I did not give the book 5 stars was becasue at times it can seem to stray away from the purpose of answering the question, "what was the star?" While there is no way to answer this question without looking at history, the book at times resembles more of a history book than an astronomy book. If you like astronomy or are just curious about the Star of Bethlehem you will find this book worth looking over. If nothing else the new way you look at the sky will be worth reading the book.

Rating:
Summary: The Star will open your eyes to the sky.
Review: Mr. Kidger's words open a whole new world to the reader. Whether you think the star is a hoax or a supernatural phenomenon, what he has to say will have you looking at the sky in a whole new way. After I read it I couldn't wait to go out and watch an eclipse, look for a comet, or just look at the stars. I even called my parents to see if they still had the telescope they bought me when I was a child. The book does a good job of presenting several views of what the "Star" could have been. Mr. Kidger doesn't expect you to believe that he is right in his conclusions, instead he gives the reader the opportunity to see many points of view. Like a good teacher, Mr. Kidger makes a conclusion from his research but makes it in such a way that the reader (student) wants to learn more. The only reason that I did not give the book 5 stars was becasue at times it can seem to stray away from the purpose of answering the question, "what was the star?" While there is no way to answer this question without looking at history, the book at times resembles more of a history book than an astronomy book. If you like astronomy or are just curious about the Star of Bethlehem you will find this book worth looking over. If nothing else the new way you look at the sky will be worth reading the book.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting and worth reading...
Review: One of two books on the star of Bethlehem published in 1999 by an astronomer. Kidger takes the view that the phenomenon was a series of events, specifically a planetary grouping followed a few months later by a bright nova. Whether you're interested in the biblical account at all, Kidger's book is an interesting historical romp through dozens of great planetary conjunctions and massings, and an enjoyable read.

Rating:
Summary: Superseded by Michael Molnar's book on the same topic.
Review: The Star of Bethlehem is a perennially favorite topic for planetarium shows, articles, musings, sermons, and books. What could be left at this late date to say about it? Quite a lot, actually. Enough so that two new books, both titled "The Star of Bethlehem" (How original!) and both copyright 1999 are on my desk as I write.

The story about the Star is found only in the Gospel of Matthew. There are three possibilities: 1) The star was a myth - invented by the writer of Matthew or earlier Christians whom he followed, in order to give Jesus appropriately royal auspices for his birth. 2) The star was a miracle provided by God to guide the Magi, even perhaps visible only to them. 3) The star was a natural astronomical event or events. These three are obviously mutually exclusive and exhaustive. If either of the first two possibilities are correct, there is little more to be said; therefore both of our authors give them short shrift.

Both books cover some of the same material in about the same way. Jesus was *not* born on December 25 of 1 BC as worked out by the Scythian monastic scholar Dionysius Exiguus (Denny the Dwarf) in 525 AD. King Herod, of whom the Magi inquired about the birth, died in 4 BC. For other reasons, the birth is fairly firmly dated to between 6 and 4 BC. If the shepherds were 'abiding with their flocks by night', the birth did not take place in December. For various reasons, these authors agree that Spring is more likely.

"The Star of Bethlehem - An Astronomer's View", by Mark Kidger, gives a review of all the various suggestions that have been made over the years, finally settling on a combination of events being the sign: a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces (the sign Kidger says is associated with the Jews - more on this later) between May and December of 7 BC, with Mars approaching this pair in February of 6 BC, followed by a near-occultation of Jupiter by the Moon in Pisces in February of 5 BC, and then, possibly a nova in March/April 5 BC, as suggested by some Korean and Chinese records.

I would have found this scenario plausible were it not for the second, and to my mind more interesting, book: "The Star of Bethlehem - The Legacy of the Magi" by Michael R. Molnar. There are two problems, as pointed out by Molnar, with the kinds of solutions reviewed, and those eventually suggested, by Kidger. Firstly, they tend to focus on what we as moderns would find to be visually compelling sights in the heavens. But this neglects the fact that the Magi were certainly *astrologers*, most likely Hellenistic rather than Babylonian in their astrological theories. Most of the events put forward would not have been significant to contemporary astrology. Kidger himself makes this point but does not seem to follow through with a close study of Hellenistic astrology as Molnar has made. Secondly, we have the advantage over the Magi of *knowing*, at least approximately, what the correct time frame is, then sifting through a small number a years to find the most significant events during those years. We have to imagine an ongoing community of astrologers, scanning the skies for generations perhaps, and imagine what would have been absolutely unique over many years, and compelling enough to make them undertake an arduous journey. In this light, Kidger's series of events are not so special.

Se my review of Michael Molnar's book for more details.