December 22 1959 - What Was the Star of Bethlehem?

All that need be said about this particular broadcast is that it led to a deluge of correspondence! The subject is certainly controversial, but there is little more lean add to it, and we are again faced with a problem which is hardly likely to be solved.

During the past few months, the planet Venus has been a striking object in the eastern sky before dawn. Shining down so brilliantly that it looks almost like a small lamp in the sky, it cannot fail to attract attention, and many people have written to me asking 'What is it ? Can it be the same object which the Bible calls the Star of Bethlehem?'

Now that Christmas is here it is certainly worth while to look into this fascinating puzzle as closely as we can. Yet we must be frank with ourselves; we cannot hope to find a definite answer, and it is by no means certain that science can provide an answer of any kind. If the star were a miracle, scientists can say nothing which will help to clear the matter up. If, on the other hand, we can show that some unusual event - astronomically speaking - occurred at about the critical moment, we may be able to make some sugges­tions as to the real nature of the star; so let us examine the various theories which have been put forward from time to time.

Watch The Sky at Night December 2001 – The star of Bethlehem

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 is 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 privacy 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 in 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.'

St Matthew says no more; the other Gospels do not mention the star at all, and so from the very beginning our information is decidedly scanty. To make matters worse, we are by no means sure about our dates. The one thing we do know for certain is that Christ was not born on 25 December a.d. i. Our 'a.d.' dates are reckoned according to the calculations of a Roman monk, Dionysius Exiguous, who died in the year 556. He computed the date of Christ's birth to be 754 years later than the founding of Rome, and the system has become so firmly established that it will never be altered now, even though it is almost definitely wrong; Christ was actually born several years earlier than Dionysius Exiguous imagined. Moreover, 25 December was not celebrated as Christmas Day until the fourth century; by which time the real date had been forgotten, so that our Christmas is wrong too.

It is most unlikely that this particular problem will ever be cleared up. The only hope would be the discovery of some vital document, but the chances seem remarkably slender, and we must make do with the fragmentary evidence which we already have.

As far as superficial appearance is concerned, Venus would fit our requirements quite well. It can be a magnificent object - as, indeed it is at the moment - and it is always best seen either in the west after sunset or in the east before dawn. Consequently, it must have been a brilliant morning star reasonably often during the period which covers the appearance of the Star of Bethlehem. Unfortunately for this idea, we can show straight away that the star was not Venus or any other planet. Two thousand years ago, the appearances and apparent motions of the celestial bodies were already well known; and if the star had been Venus, everybody would have known about it - indeed, Herod himself would have had to do no more than go and look.

This may seem a simple argument, but it is certainly a powerful one. Herod was 'troubled', to use Matthew's term, because the star was unusual, and so could not be explained away.

The same reasoning disposes of the idea that the planet Jupiter can have been responsible.

Over a hundred years ago, an interesting theory was put forward by a German scientist, C. L. Ideler. Ideler calculated the positions of the planets at the period, and found that in the year 7 b.c. Jupiter and Saturn were close together, with Mars not far off. Confining ourselves to the first two planets for the moment, we must agree that on rare occasions it is possible for Jupiter and Saturn to lie so close together in the sky that they appear as one object - at least to the unaided eye.

It is true that if put together, Jupiter and Saturn would make a brave show in the sky - but Ideler's calculations were wrong. The whole situation was re-examined in 1856 by the Rev. Charles Pritchard, who found that in 7 B.C. the two planets were never sufficiently close in the sky to be mistaken for one object; neither do their positions agree with that of the star according to the wise men. The idea is ingenious, but we must definitely reject it.

Our Sun is an ordinary star, and - fortunately for us - it shines steadily; its total output of energy has not altered much over the past million years at least. Most of the other stars are similarly well behaved. Now and then, however, we are able to watch a real stellar outburst, when a formerly very faint star suffers some kind of internal disturbance and brightens up suddenly, becoming ex­tremely brilliant for a few days or weeks before fading back into obscurity. These 'nova', as they are termed, cannot be predicted, but are not particularly unusual; among those which have been seen during the present century were the novae of 1901, 1918 and 1934.

More spectacular still are the even more violent 'super- novae', in which the star concerned blows much of its material away into space. In recorded times, three supernovas have been seen in our own star-system - those of 1054, 1572 and 1604, all of which became bright enough to be seen with the unaided eye in full daylight. It has been suggested that the Star of Bethlehem may have been another.

This is certainly the best idea yet. The ancient astronomers could have had no idea of the nature of a supernova, and would have been quite likely to have classed any such thing as a miracle; more­over, the object would have remained visible only for a limited period, which would account for the fact that it was never men­tioned again. It could easily have made its appearance in the eastern part of the evening sky, and it would most certainly have taken everybody by surprise.

On the other hand, we are still faced with the difficulty that astronomical records say nothing about a nova or supernova during the years immediately before Christ's birth; and although the records are admittedly incomplete, one would have expected to have found a reference somewhere or other. In addition, Matthew makes it clear that the star was first seen by the wise men before their interview with Herod, and was again seen afterwards. Novae do not brighten and fade in such a way. If the star were of such a nature, it would have been plainly visible at the time the wise men were in Jerusalem - whereas, apparently, it was not.

Yet another theory suggests that the star was our old friend Halley's Comet.

Comets have been termed the 'stray' members of the solar sys­tem. They are not massive, solid bodies; a typical comet is made up of relatively small pieces of matter in a gaseous envelope.

All comets revolve round the sun, but most of the brilliant ones take many hundreds of years to complete one journey, so that they cannot be predicted. The exception is Halley's Comet, which has a period of only seventy-six years; it was last bright in 1910, and is due back in 1986. It was also visible in 11 b.c., and may well have been conspicuous from the Holy Land.

We believe that Christ must have been born rather before a.d. i . This means that 11 b.c. lies within the 'period of uncertainty'.

Speaking from a strictly scientific point of view, it may be the most plausible explanation we can offer. However, we are faced with many of the difficulties mentioned earlier, and this brings me to a theory of my own, which I advance with great diffidence. I suggest that the Star of Bethlehem may have been due to two meteors.

A meteor is a small piece of matter moving round the sun in the manner of a dwarf planet. Under normal conditions it cannot be seen, but if a meteor happens to come close to the Earth it enters the upper atmosphere; friction against the air-particles causes heat, and the meteor is destroyed in the streak of luminosity which we call a shooting-star. An exceptional meteor - of rather greater size - may be strikingly conspicuous; and the after-effects may remain visible for anything up to a quarter of an hour.

Suppose that the wise men had seen such a meteor in the east? They could not have had the slightest idea as to its cause, and to them it would have seemed truly miraculous. Very probably, too, it would have been the first such object which they had ever seen; even today, in the space age, there are many people who have never observed anything of the sort. If a second meteor had appeared later, more or less in the same position in the sky, they would have regarded the miracle as confirmed.

This would not be too improbable a coincidence. Several times in each year the earth passes through a 'shoal' of meteors; at present the richest shower of shooting-stars occurs in August, which may well have been the month in which Christ was born. It also explains why the star was invisible during the wise men's stay in Jerusalem, and why none of the astronomical records mention it at all.

If we want to explain the star as being due to some astronomical body, we have a choice between a nova or supernova, Halley's Comet - or just possibly some other comet which has escaped the records - or my own suggestion of two meteors. None of the explanations is wholly convincing, but it is difficult to see how the problem can be solved.