![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/01\/StarofBethlehem3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce<\/a> takes the position that the star of Bethlehem can only reasonably be interpreted (according to the biblical text, which they of course don\u2019t believe in) as a supernatural<\/em> occurrence, as opposed to a natural<\/em> one (conjunction, supernova, or comet being the three most suggested possibilities): as I have argued<\/a>.<\/p>\n Moreover,\u00a0he claims that this \u201cstar\u201d specifically shone down on (to identify) the \u201chouse\u201d where Jesus was, even though the biblical text (Matthew 2:9) never states<\/em> this and refers (in 19 Bible versions I have found) only to a \u201cplace\u201d that can be a large regional area.<\/p>\n I have contended<\/a> that the star of Bethlehem was the combination of an extraordinary conjunction (when the wise men saw it from Persia) and a very bright Jupiter when the wise men saw that planet between Jerusalem and Bethlehem in December 2 BC, and used it as a guide: my best guess based on many considerations, for their visit to the toddler<\/em> (not newborn) Jesus.<\/p>\n I decided to undertake a survey of many biblical commentaries to see if \u2014 here and there \u2014 perhaps one or two (needle in a haystack) might be found that agree<\/em> with what I am contending about the star of Bethlehem being a natural phenomenon, and not shining specifically on one house in Bethlehem.<\/p>\n For the sake of brevity, I only cite them where they agree with me or when they claim not to know<\/em> what it was (neutral or agnostic position: II and IV below). I\u2019m not denying<\/em>\u00a0at all that these commentators may also disagree<\/em> on the other major point or additional ones. Readers who want to see their entire comment on Matthew 2:9 can follow the links I provide.<\/p>\n I. Star of Bethlehem Was a Natural<\/em> Celestial Phenomenon<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A) <\/strong>Meteor<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n [I]t appears to have been a simple luminous meteor in a star-like form, and at a very short distance from the ground . . . (Adam Clarke<\/a>, 1832)<\/p>\n it appears that the star was a luminous meteor, perhaps at no great distance from the ground. (Albert Barnes<\/a>, 1832)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n [Note: Alastair McBeath, in his article, \u201cMeteor Beliefs Project: \u2018meteor\u2019 and related terms in English usage\u201d<\/a> (WGN, Journal of the International Meteor Organization, vol. 32, no.1, p.35-38, 2004) states that formerly there were several different understandings of the word meteor<\/em>, and four major classes:\u00a0 airy, watery, luminous, and fiery. He stated that the \u201cluminous\u201d variety were not \u201cthe \u2018shooting-star\u2019 type, but consist of other phenomena such as the aurora, the rainbow or any of the halo effects seen mainly with the Sun or Moon.\u201d But then the plot thickens, as he explains further:<\/p>\n Looking at mid-19th century information suggests the preferred term for shooting-stars then, in the scientific literature at least, was \u2018luminous meteors\u2019, not \u2018fiery\u2019 ones, however. . . .<\/p>\n \u2018Fiery meteors\u2019 was still in use, then, as well as the more general \u2018meteor\u2019 for almost anything in the sky . . . However, this seems to have been more among the poetic or philosophical communities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So it\u2019s difficult to determine with absolute certainty<\/em> in the two 19th century citations above, which exact sense is in mind. It may be that a sense is being used that is not \u201cnatural\u201d per se, and thus would be classified as a supernaturalist explanation. But in Barnes\u2019 case he seems to be expressing what we mean today by \u201cmeteor\u201d by stating in his commentary on Matthew 2:2: \u201cmeteor, such as we now see sometimes shoot from the sky, which the wise men saw, . . .\u201d (i.e., a \u201cshooting star\u201d in the modern accepted sense. At least that seems to me the most plausible take of what Barnes is contending). ]<\/p>\n B) <\/strong>Comet<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Many suggest that it was a natural phenomenon that can be traced back to some known astronomical event, whether a comet, a supernova, or a conjunction of planets. (Michael J. Wilkins<\/a>, 2009)<\/p>\n C) <\/strong>Conjunction<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The astronomical theory thus explains the passage: The most remarkable conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn took place in May, and would be visible before sunrise (i.e.,<\/i>\u00a0in the east), five months afterwards, a sufficient time to perform the journey; another conjunction took place which would be visible near the meridian shortly after sunset. If then they set out in the early night this phenomenon would be apparent in the direction of Bethlehem. (Philip Schaff<\/a>, 1890)<\/p>\n The way Matthew narrates the story supports the interpretation that an earlier conjunction started them on their way, and now a major and subsequent conjunction . . . proves that their reading of the stars was correct. (Robert H, Mounce<\/a>, 2011)<\/p>\n D) <\/strong>Supernova<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Many suggest that it was a natural phenomenon that can be traced back to some known astronomical event, whether a comet, a supernova, or a conjunction of planets. (Michael J. Wilkins<\/a>, 2009)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n II. Unsure<\/em> Whether it Was Supernatural or Natural<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n . . . we may not know the exact nature of that star . . . (Coffman Commentaries<\/em><\/a>, 1983-1999)<\/p>\n Many suggest that it was a natural phenomenon that can be traced back to some known astronomical event, whether a comet, a supernova, or a conjunction of planets. (Michael J. Wilkins<\/a>, 2009)<\/p>\n What they saw remains uncertain . . . [The] supernatural [view] is possible and obviously impossible to falsify, but v. 9 is not as determinative as is often suggested. (D. A. Carson<\/a>, 2017)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n III. Star Of Bethlehem Did Not<\/em> Specifically Shine Down on the House Where Jesus Was<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It is not said to indicate the precise house, but the general location where the child was<\/em>. (R. T. France<\/a>, 1985)<\/p>\n And then Bethlehem came into sight with the star still in front of them and to their delight it appeared as though the star hovered over Bethlehem. There was Bethlehem below them, and the light of the star appeared to be reflecting on the town. It was clear to them from this that the wonder child was indeed there. They had reached the end of their journey. Note the very vague \u2018over where the young child was\u2019. It is totally open to interpretation. We may make of it what we want. (Peter Pett<\/a>, 2013)<\/p>\n The Greek text does not imply that the star pointed out the house where Jesus was or that it led the travelers through twisty streets; it may simply have hovered over Bethlehem as the Magi approached it.\u00a0(D. A. Carson<\/a>, 2017)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n IV. Unsure<\/em> Whether the Star of Bethlehem\u00a0<\/strong>Specifically Shone Down on the House Where Jesus Was<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n the manner in which the particular house is indicated is left undetermined. (Heinrich Meyer<\/a>, 1832)<\/p>\n may mean, \u2018over that part of Bethlehem where the young child was<\/i>,\u2019 which they might have ascertained by enquiry. Or it may even mean,\u00a0\u2018over the whole town of Bethlehem.\u2019<\/i>\u00a0If it is to be understood as standing\u00a0over the house<\/i>, and thus\u00a0indicating<\/i>\u00a0to the magi the\u00a0position of the object of their search<\/i>, the whole incident must be regarded as miraculous. But this is not necessarily implied, even if the words of the text be literally understood . . . (Henry Alford<\/a>, 1878)<\/p>\n The expression,\u00a0where the young child was,\u00a0<\/span>may, however, refer to Bethlehem. (Philip Schaff<\/a>, 1890)<\/p>\n Either over Bethlehem, or over the house where the young child was sheltered. (People\u2019s New Testament<\/em><\/a>, 1891)<\/p>\n Stopped over the place. Either over Bethlehem, or the house where the young child was sheltered. (The Bible Study New Testament<\/em><\/a>, 1974)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n V. Star of Bethlehem \u201cStopping\u201d as the \u201cRetrograde Motion\u201d or \u201cStationary Point\u201d of Jupiter<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n (Whether the star did actually in any way stop, apart from because they were stopping, we do not know. But for any who quibble about whether a star could \u2018stop\u2019 we supply the following extract from an article by an expert astronomer, based on the assumption that having seen the conjunction of Jupiter with another star, producing an excessively bright star, they had continued to monitor Jupiter while on their travels, something which must be considered quite likely. They were after all observers of the stars.\u00a0\u201cThe word \u201cstop\u201d was used for what we now call a planet\u2019s \u201cstationary point.\u201d A planet normally moves eastward through the stars from night to night and month to month, but regularly exhibits a \u201cretrograde loop.\u201d As it approaches the opposite point in the sky from the sun, it appears to slow, come to a full stop, and move backward (westward) through the sky for some weeks. Again it slows, stops, and resumes its eastward course. It seems plausible that the Magi were \u201coverjoyed\u201d at again seeing before them, as they travelled southward, the \u2018star\u2019, Jupiter, which at its stationary point was standing still over Bethlehem. We do know for certain that Jupiter performed a retrograde loop in 2 BC, and that it was actually stationary on December 25, interestingly enough, during Hanukkah, the season for giving presents. (Peter Pett<\/a>, 2013; excessive italics removed)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n VI. Phenomenological, Non-Literal Language of Appearances Employed in Matthew 2:9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n in a matter like astronomy, where popular language is so universally broad, and the Scriptures so generally use popular language, it is surely not the letter, but the spirit of the narrative with which we are concerned.\u00a0(Henry Alford<\/a>, 1878)<\/p>\n Being near the zenith it would seem to go before them on their way.\u00a0(Philip Schaff<\/a>, 1890)<\/p>\n The words would seem to imply that they started in the evening, and, as they started, saw the star in the direction of Bethlehem. In popular language it served to guide them, and so led them on. (Charles John Ellicott<\/a>, 1905)<\/p>\n The star \u2018went before them\u2019. It does not say that they specifically followed it. That was unnecessary. They only had to follow the road, and there is no more reason to think that the star moved as it \u2018went before them\u2019, than there would have been to think that the road moved if it had said that they \u2018followed the road\u2019. It is the language of appearance (just as we say that \u2018the sun rises\u2019 when we know perfectly well that literally it does not). All that was necessary was that they thought that it moved before them, because that was what it appeared to do. After all they knew that stars moved, otherwise their months and years spent in calculating their movements would have been a waste of time, and those who travel widely often feel that the stars are moving before them. Many a mariner has spoken of following the north star, and of the north star, or some other heavenly lights, going before their ship, when it was only their ship that moved. (Peter Pett<\/a>, 2013)<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus\u00a0<\/a>(Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men\u00a0 & Jesus\u2019 Birth & Infancy)\u00a0[12-14-20]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Timeline: Star of Bethlehem, Herod\u2019s Death, & Jesus\u2019 Birth (Chronology of Harmonious Data from History, Archaeology, the Bible, and Astronomy)<\/a>\u00a0[12-15-20]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: Refuting Silly Atheist Objections<\/a>\u00a0[12-26-20]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: More Silly Atheist \u201cObjections\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[12-29-20]<\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #12: Supernatural Star of Bethlehem? (Biblical View of Astronomy, Laws of Nature, and the Natural World)<\/a>\u00a0[1-11-21]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: Natural or Supernatural?<\/a>\u00a0[1-13-21]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: Reply to Obnoxious Atheist Aaron Adair<\/a>\u00a0(Plus Further Related Exchanges with Aaron and a Few Others in an Atheist Combox)\u00a0<\/a>[1-14-21]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: 2nd Reply to Arrogant Aaron Adair<\/a>\u00a0[1-18-21]<\/p>\n Star Researcher Aaron Adair: \u201cLiar, Liar, Pants on Fire!\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-19-21]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Exchange with atheist commenter eric<\/a> (his words in blue<\/span>):<\/p>\n Mr. Armstrong, personally I don\u2019t think the idea of only quoting those bits of another scholar that agree with you when they disagree with your overall conclusion is good practice.<\/span><\/p>\n Telling your audience their overall disagreement may not be necessary, but if a scientist disagreed with my paper\u2019s overall conclusions, but agreed with some small particular of my analysis, and I quoted that person in my paper, I would mention their overall disagreement. It\u2019s a \u201cfull disclosure\u201d type of practice to inform your audience that while\u00a0you<\/i>\u00a0might reason A -> B, the folks whom you cite as authoritative sources for supporting \u2018A is true\u2019 do not reason from it to B\u2026and in fact they conclude not-B.<\/span><\/p>\n This is (in my opinion) a key difference between the \u2018legal\/apologetic way\u2019 of arguing and the \u2018scientific\/academic way\u2019 of arguing; in the legal system, it\u2019s your peers and opponent\u2019s job to bring up the flaws in your argument \u2013 you are not obligated to bring them up (in fact, it may be considered unethical to do so!). But in the professional scientific and academic way of arguing, if you know of a flaw in your own logic, and it\u2019s important to your thesis or paper, you yourself are obligated to bring it up (in fact, it may be considered unethical not to!).<\/span><\/p>\n Of course I\u00a0did<\/i>\u00a0note the disagreements, in the same paper Aaron despises so much:<\/p>\n For the sake of brevity, I only cite them where they agree with me or when they claim not to\u00a0know<\/i>\u00a0what it was (neutral or agnostic position: II and IV below). I\u2019m not\u00a0denying<\/i>\u00a0at all that these commentators may also\u00a0disagree\u00a0<\/i>on the other major point or additional ones. Readers who want to see their entire comment on Matthew 2:9 can follow the links I provide.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I conceded three points<\/a>, based on Aaron\u2019s latest critique. They were relatively minor points, and didn\u2019t affect my overall case at all. I noted many errors in Aaron\u2019s analysis. He retracts nothing. When I do so, this is how he reacts:<\/p>\n I\u2019ll let others interpret how best to take that. It would suggest honesty, only insofar as he has to have is faced pushed next to the text to admit what it says. Conversely, it shows he cannot do reliable research.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ROFL. So this is my choice: if I deny all of Aaron\u2019s accusations, I am, of course, a \u201cliar\u201d: as he has now stated literally about a hundred times. In fact I have conceded three points and another partial point (the past use of the word \u201cmeteor\u201d). Therefore, I am a lousy, unreliable researcher. That\u2019s the choice: liar or dumbbell and ignoramus.<\/p>\n I would say that I am an open-minded thinker, capable of changing his mind and being convinced by contrary facts and reasoning: even by a persistent slander who calls me a liar every two seconds and has acted like a total ass ever since our first exchange. That\u2019s exactly what I want to be. I\u2019m not ashamed of it. I\u2019ve always had an open mind. That\u2019s why I could convert from evangelical Protestant to Catholic and undergo many other changes of mind through the years (politically, morally, etc.).<\/p>\n This particular sub-discussion was in the realm of theology (particularly, biblical exegesis: what commentators believe what, about the star), not science. I was simply looking for examples of exegetes who took a natural view of the star: something that Aaron implied scarcely existed. There are all kinds of disagreements among Christians regarding the star, which I have always noted from the start. I also constantly note that my view is only a speculative theory: no more.<\/p>\n I read your first quotation before, but (again, just in my opinion), that doesn\u2019t do the needed academic work. \u201cI only cite Bob on A, not on B, so readers should keep in mind Bob might have different ideas about B\u201d is nowhere near as forthright, accurate, or transparent a cite as \u201cBob agrees with me on A, but thinks it\u2019s wrong to derive B from A like I do, and in fact he thinks B is wrong.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This particular sub-discussion was in the realm of theology (particularly, biblical exegesis: what commentators believe what, about\u00a0the star), not science.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Agreed. And maybe academic theology has different standard practices (than science) about how to cite publications and experts that agree with you in part but dissent with you in part. I\u2019m offering what I see as a \u2018best practice,\u2019 not a \u2018thou shalt, else you are a liar.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n I continue to respectfully disagree, but thank you for a civil, substantive comment, minus the ubiquitous (and beyond silly) accusation that I am a liar.<\/p>\n That paper was simply an effort to find commentators who believed six particular things that I categorized. It\u2019s not making any pretense to being \u201cacademic\u201d or \u201cscholarly\u201d (me being a mere lay apologist and nothing more). It\u2019s no big deal. It was a simple overview \/ summary of what a bunch of biblical commentators believe on various aspects relating to the star.<\/p>\n So it\u2019s arguing: \u201ccommentators\u00a0a, b, c<\/i>, believe in proposition\u00a0x<\/i>, related to the star of Bethlehem [one of six].\u201d There is no insinuation whatsoever that commentators\u00a0a, b, c<\/i>\u00a0also believe in propositions\u00a0y, z<\/i>, etc. regarding the star, and I took pains to note that they often didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> Martin Junius:\u00a0Conjunction of Jupiter and Venus<\/span> [mj\u2019s photography<\/a> \/ CC BY-ND-NC 3.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce takes the position that the star of Bethlehem can only reasonably be interpreted (according to the biblical text, which they of course don\u2019t believe in) as a supernatural occurrence, as opposed to a natural one (conjunction, supernova, or comet being the three most suggested possibilities): as I have argued. Moreover,\u00a0he claims […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":54021,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1005],"tags":[12532,12687,12684,12690,453,2365,12535,12769,12553,9940,12772,12529,12766,3188,12826,12559],"class_list":["post-53995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-christmas","tag-astronomy-the-star-of-bethlehem","tag-atheists-the-magi","tag-atheists-the-star-of-bethlehem","tag-atheists-the-wise-men","tag-bethlehem","tag-christmas","tag-conjunctions","tag-conjunctions-in-daytime","tag-jupiter","tag-magi","tag-mars","tag-star-of-bethlehem","tag-stars-in-the-daytime","tag-three-wise-men","tag-tippling-philosopher","tag-venus"],"yoast_head":"\n\n