Was there really a Star of Bethlehem?

Adapted from an article first published in the Bridge Magazine, December 2019

Was there really a Star of Bethlehem?

No Christmas nativity scene is complete without a glowing star in the night sky, leading the wise men to Jesus’ birth. But what was the “Star of Bethlehem”? What have scientists and theologians suggested down the ages? To answer that, let’s start by looking at what the Bible says about it.

Matthew chapter 2 tells us that after Jesus was born in Bethlehem, wise men came from the east to King Herod’s palace in Jerusalem asking,

Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:2)

Herod asks them

the exact time the star appeared” (Matthew 2:7)

and then sends the wise men on their way,

and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.” (Matthew 2:9-10)

So what was the star? What did those wise men see? Well had you asked a first-century astronomer, probably the first thing they’d tell is that the Greek word the Bible uses for “star” (astera) was used to describe pretty much any glowing object in the sky.

So the “star” could be a conjunction of planets. Sometimes the planets in our solar system, when viewed from earth, appear to overlap – creating a temporary larger “star”. This solution was first suggested by German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), discoverer of the three laws of planetary motion. Jupiter and Saturn, the two largest planets in our solar system, were in conjunction during 7 and 6BC, which is close to the period when a lot of historians think Jesus was born.

Others have suggested the “star” was a supernova, an exploding star. Archaeologists have discovered writings by Chinese and Korean astronomers noting the appearance of a supernova in 5BC.

The problem with both the supernova and conjunction theories is that they don’t do justice to Matthew’s description of the star leading the wise men west to Jerusalem then south to Bethlehem, before stopping over the place where Jesus was. For an object in the sky to do that, it needs to be able to move, and conjunctions and supernovas don’t.

So perhaps it was an alien spaceship! On Christmas Eve a few years ago, the Daily Express published an article suggesting Jesus was an alien shapeshifter, and that the Star of Bethlehem was a UFO! Thankfully, even the article’s author seemed sceptical, saying,

As ludicrous as this idea is, it’s the only [way to explain] how the object could have suddenly appeared, moved and stopped for the apparent purpose of pinpointing Jesus’ birthplace.”

But it isn’t the only way to explain star’s movement. In 2015 a biblical scholar called Colin Nicholl wrote a book suggesting the star of Bethlehem was a comet. Nichol worked with a team of astronomers and mathematicians to build a computer model showing how his “Great Christ Comet” could have travelled through the inner solar system and been visible in the parts of the sky it needed to be visible in to fit the descriptions the Bible gives us. Praised by biblical scholars, mathematicians and astronomers alike, the book offers a plausible and mathematically sound theory. But it is just a theory, and until an archaeologist unearths an early edition of the Sky at Night we have no way of proving whether it is correct.

And what that means is that the star will probably remain forever shrouded in mystery. Its main witnesses, a bunch of learned pagan astronomers knew enough of science and the night sky to know that star was extraordinary. That’s why they travelled to Bethlehem (probably from Babylon, so about 550 miles) to find out more. And what they found there caused them to kneel in wonder before the child who is God, our creator, and the creator of all the stars in all the heavens.

May you share in their awe and wonder as you celebrate the birth of Christ, this Christmas time.

From the Manifesto to the Manger

From the Manifesto to the Manger

Have the children in your life compiled their Christmas lists yet? One child I know has asked for a “reel (sic) gun to shoot my brother with.” Another wants a trip to Disneyland. I suspect both will be disappointed.

When I was a child, no one got to read my Christmas lists. My parents craftily convinced my sister and I that because Santa enters the home through the chimney, the fireplace was surely the way to get a message back to him. So, every year our lists went into an envelope addressed to Santa, which was then thrown into the fireplace.

But of course, children aren’t the only ones with fantasy wish lists this Christmas: Boris, Jeremy and Jo all have them too! Want more spending on the NHS, whilst paying less tax? Want better buses for rural areas (how else can we get to Birmingham to catch HS2 to London?) Or perhaps you’d prefer an end to homelessness, a pay rise for the public sector and an end to university tuition fees? Dear Santa…

It seems strange to have an election so close to Christmas. I haven’t heard how Brenda from Bristol has reacted this time round, but I suspect she’ll be loving a Christmas election. She might even suggest doing with the politicians’ Christmas manifesto lists, what my parents did with my Christmas lists all those years ago, assuming you’re still allowed a fireplace in eco-friendly Bristol!

Underlying all of our Christmas and manifesto wish lists is a hope that by changing something outside ourselves, life might become better. And whilst there’s certainly a lot of things that need fixing in our country, at Christmas time it’s important for each of us to remember that the change we need to see most of all, isn’t “out there” but “in here”, in our own hearts and minds.

One of the most beautiful expressions of the difference a changed heart and mind can make is found in a short New Testament letter written by St Paul from his Roman jail cell to the church in the Greek city of Philippi. Despite facing martyrdom and the grim daily joys of Roman prison, he tells his Philippian friends not to worry about him, because he’s

learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.”

You might wonder what that secret is, and here’s a clue, you’ll find in any of the party manifestoes or in any child’s Christmas list!

Here’s what the secret is. Paul says,

I can do all this through [Christ] who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:13).

It turns out that the child whose birth we celebrate at Christmas is the only one who can transform our hearts and minds to such an extent, that we can face any circumstance with contentment.

So as you cast your vote on December 12th, remember what deep down in our hearts we all know – that no matter what they promise, politicians never bring contentment! For true hope we have to look beyond the manifesto to the manger!

To find out more about God’s manifesto for contentment, why don’t you join us at your local church’s carol service this Christmas? Visit www.hopechurchfamily.org/christmas for details. And whichever way you vote, may you have a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year!

 

First published in the Bridge Magazine, December 2019

 

 

When was Jesus really born?

When was Jesus really born?

Combine all that fuss about Christmas, with our Anno Domini calendar system, and you might imagine that Jesus was born in 1AD on December 25th. The problem is, there’s nothing in the Bible to point us to December 25th, and lots of evidence in the Bible to suggest Jesus was born several years earlier!

This lack of clarity over when Jesus was born has led some sceptics to be very critical of Christian claims about the birth of Jesus. In his God Delusion, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins dismisses the evidence for Jesus’ birth as a load of historical nonsense[i]. But is he right? What can we know for sure about when Jesus was born?

First, let’s deal with the obvious: in Jesus day there was no system for registering births with the state, so we don’t have the sort of details about Jesus’ birth that would be a matter of public record about any birth today. The exact time and date of his birth, and what he weighed, are a mystery, though it’s reasonable to assume that Mum and baby were in a stable condition.

But this doesn’t mean we can’t make a plausible estimate about when he was born. The gospel writers Luke and Matthew tell us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (who most historians reckon died in 4BC[ii]). Luke later tells us that Jesus was “about thirty” years old in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (28AD). So if Jesus was born no later than 4BC, and was still “about 30” in 28AD, then he had to have been born in 6-4BC.

Which would all be fine if the Gospel of Luke didn’t also tell us that Jesus was born after Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to register for a census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This is a problem because Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6AD, ten years after Herod died. So it looks like Luke made a mistake, and there’s an error in the Bible! Perhaps Dawkins is right after all?

Or perhaps not. As you can imagine, the historians have been poring over this question for many years, and have offered a number of possible explanations.

It could be that Quirinius was governor of Syria more than once: not only in 6-12AD but also during the period 4BC-1BC when we don’t know who was governor[iii]. If he’d begun a census in this earlier period, then there’s no problem with what Luke says. Sadly there’s no conclusive evidence to prove this, though there are some interesting hints it might have been the case. An archaeological find known as the Antioch Stones dated somewhere between 11-1BC, places Quirinius in Syria at this time, and the Roman historian Tacitus also seems to place him in the area in 4-3BC[iv]. Another archaeological find known as the Lapis Tiburtinus, refers to an un-named person going to Asia to take on a senior role for the second time. This could be Quirinius, but without a name, we can never know for certain.[v]

Another possible explanation is that Luke is referring to a census that began before Jesus’ birth, but which wasn’t completed until Quirinius was governor in 6AD (some Roman censuses took as long as 40 years to complete). This is a plausible theory, but until evidence of such a census is found, it is only just a theory.

Perhaps more likely is that many of our modern Bibles mistranslate the rather ambiguous language that Luke uses about the census. The New International Version which we use in many of our services, states:

This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

However Greek word orders are very different to English, and the word translated as “first” can also be translated as “before”. The Greek scholar and historian NT Wright suggests a better translation would be,

This was the first registration, before the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”[vi]

This actually makes a lot of sense grammatically and historically, because the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6AD was notorious: it lead to revolution and the imposition of direct Roman rule on Israel.

Sadly, until more historical evidence emerges, we can’t know which explanation is right, but as things stand, no archaeological discovery has proven Luke wrong. In fact, the opposite is true, which does rather undermine Dawkins’ “historical nonsense” argument.

What then can we conclude from all this? That the checkable facts in Luke and Matthew’s accounts, suggest that Jesus was born no later than 4BC and possibly as early as 6BC.

Which is all of course rather embarrassing for the inventor of the Anno Domini system, a 6th century monk called Dionysius Exiguus. Either he hadn’t read his Bible very accurately, or more likely, he made a mistake when translating the Roman calendar system into his new format. And once his flawed Anno Domini system was popularised by a 7th century monk called Bede, based in my home town of Sunderland (and former parish of Jarrow) it was more than anyone’s job was worth to correct the error!

 

[i] Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion, p93-95

[ii] For details of Herod’s death, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_governors_of_Syria

[iv] Tacitus, Annales, iii. 48

[v] For a sceptical view of the evidence about Quirinius see https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

[vi] For more information on how Luke 2:2 can be translated, see http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2004/12/luke-census-and-quirinius-matter-of.html

First published in the Bridge Magazine, December 2018

Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals