The Global Flood

by coldfish 290 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • City Fan
    City Fan

    a Christian, you said:

    I believe the only ones who ?see? ?the sign of the Son of Man,? ?in the sun, moon and stars,? are those who have spent time studying the Bible, history and astronomy to truly ?see? for themselves that this "sign? is real.

    I just want to go through 2 astronomical principles to show you exactly why this 400 ratio is not a constant. The mean equitorial radius of the Moon is 1734.4km and the Mean equitorial radius of the Sun is 696000km. I got these figures from my Skymap Pro astronomical software, and so get a ratio of Sun/Moon radius of 401.29. This ratio will only be exactly 400 when using rounded figures as those websites have done.

    The first principle is that the distances of the Earth from the Sun, and of the Moon from the Earth are not contants. They both have eliptical orbits of ecentricity 0.017 and 0.055 respectively. So, for example, when the Moon is nearest the Earth (perigee) and the Sun is furthest away, the lunar disk may appear as much as 1.08 times as large as the Sun (semi -diameter 1023" compared to 946").

    At the other extreme, when the Moon is furthest from Earth (apogee) and the Sun closest to Earth, then the Moon may cover no more than 0.90 of the Sun (semi-diameter 881" compared with 978"). This is why we get annular eclipses, when the Moon is not big enough to completely cover the Sun's disk.

    The second principle involved is loss of angular momentum of the Earth. This means the rate of spin of the Earth is slowing down and the Moon is gradually moving farther away from the Earth. This is caused mainly by tidal friction slowing down the Earth's rotation. It can easily be measured by among other things bouncing lasers off the Moon's surface (the array was installed by Neil Armstrong on the Apollo 11 mission).

    It means that in the far future Solar eclipses will no longer happen, and in the past creatures of the Cretaceous period would have gazed up at a Moon considerably larger in the sky than now. Again one way to easily prove that the Earth's rotation has slowed over millions of years is to look at Coral fossils.

    If the Earth rotated faster in it's earlier periods then there would have been more days per year. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurement of fossil corals from 180 ? 450 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days. All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.

    The rate of this increase in the length of day has been calculated at 1.7 milliseconds per century. So, as an example, this would mean that 100 years from now the Earth will have lost about 31 seconds.

    (2.3 ÷ 2) x 365.2422 x 100 = 31046 ms

    = 31 seconds.

    Working backwards how do we calculate how many days would be in one year in the Silurian period 435 - 395 million years ago?

    If the LOD decreases 1.7 ms per century then the LOD will decrease 17 seconds in a million years and about 6800 seconds in 400 millions years.

    1.7 x (400,000,000 ÷ 100,000) = 6800 seconds.

    6800 seconds = approx 1.9 hours. So 400 million years ago the length of a day was approximately 22.10 hours long.

    So the number of days in a Silurian year = 8765.8 ÷ 22.10 = approx 396.64 days.

    These results also agree with radiometric dating of rocks of the Silurian period.

    Anyway, a Christian, I just wanted to show you that these distances are not constants. The orbits of both Earth and Moon are eliptical. Millions of year ago the Moon was much closer to the Earth and the Earth rotated faster and had many more days in the year as can be proved by fossils, radiometric dating and Earth rotation calculations.

    It also seems that whichever god created the solar system has never changed or cannot change the laws that govern its movement.

    CF.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Nice work, City Fan. Of course it won't convince the true believer, but then, nothing ever does.

    I'm really not sure what a Christian's point is anyway. "Hey, look at this minor astronomical coincidence. It has to do with the number 400. The numbers 4, 40, 400 and 4000 are mentioned sometimes in the Bible. Therefore, it's some kind of sign." There are definitely a couple of steps missing there.

  • iggy_the_fish
    iggy_the_fish

    ditto, nice post City Fan.

    a christian - you need to read City Fan's post carefully and make sure you understand it properly. No planet is exactly a sphere, and no planetary orbit is exactly a circle. When you see figures for diameters on websites, you're looking at averages and approximations - NOT exact numbers. When you quote them here as exact numbers, you just look silly. Abaddon's right on this one, and you're just going to have to swallow it at some point I'm afraid!

    The sun-moon diameter ratio is APPROXIMATELY 400, NOT EXACTLY 400. Please stop saying that it's exactly 400, based on approximations you've lifted off websites.

    ig.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Lovely work City Fan... I did point out to him pages ago that if he eanted to find a point where the ratios were 400's, he'd have wait hundreds of millions of years for the sign to be there, or would have missed it by hundreds of millions of years (assuming there was an epoch where there was this ratio in the 'diameter:distance:brightness' compund claim he is making. So don't hold your breath for him admitting he's talking out of a non-optimal oriface for verbal communication.

    a claimed Christian

    Are you so removed from reason you don't realise that the chances of the Sun being EXACTLY 864,000 miles or the Moon EXACTLY 2,160 miles in diameter are rather low.

    Obviously yes.

    The Moon's equatorial diameter is 3,476.2 km (to the nearest 100 metres), or 2,159.13 miles.

    The Sun's average equatorial diameter is just under 1,392,000km or 864,596.27 miles.

    You are free to refute these measurements

    http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5027739

    http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/~adelabr/Leister01_28.pdf#search='solar%20diameter%20measurement'

    http://das.ee.unsw.edu.au/~solar/classrooms/sun_size.htm

    Oh, hang on, maybe you aren't removed from reason. Maybe you are intentionally decietful.

    After all, you have already lied about me in this thread. Now, after I show you that you have been rounding figures to achieve any signficance, and caution you about diligence, you persist in maintaining the same claims.

    You must have tried really hard to miss all the sources on the Internet which say, for example, "diameter of the Sun is 870,000 miles" (http://eclipse99.ksc.nasa.gov/pages/sun2.html).

    You are such a liar! You even acknowledge there is variance in quoted figures in your post, yet persist in your instance that in real life the Sun is 400 times the size of the Moon, even though that claim is possible only using rounded figures! What deceit for a Christian to practise!

    So, having established you are repeating a lie you already made without any excuse of ignorance to justify it, i.e. lying deliberately, you'll now address the other issues I've raised? I've not lied about you, you're the liar in this thread.

    Or will you persist in your attention-seeking repetative and false claims?

    Oh, by the way, we all know you've not said anything about the Earth-Sun distance being only around 389 times the distance between the Earth and Moon is because you can't say anything about that. You didn't even know that before I told you. But even though your false little sign is dead ANYWAY (as even you are not foolish enbough to say 389 is the same as 400), you try to fight for it on what you think is its strongest ground. Ha!

    It really is ALL about you and nothing about god, isn't it?

  • Pole
    Pole
    I did point out to him pages ago that if he eanted to find a point where the ratios were 400's, he'd have wait hundreds of millions of years for the sign to be there, or would have missed it by hundreds of millions of years (assuming there was an epoch where there was this ratio in the 'diameter:distance:brightness' compund claim he is making. So don't hold your breath for him admitting he's talking out of a non-optimal oriface for verbal communication.

    And that in turn would mean that if God really wanted these figures to have any hidden meaning then he'd have to plan quite a few things ahead, such as Adam's sin + all the consequences as well as the development of modern astronomy, etc. This secret "sign in heavens" wouldn't have been necessary if everybody was living in Paradise today.

    It's utterly ridiculous to try to imagine God pushing the planets around so that the arc size of the moon would match that of the sun at a certain point in time and then finally screwing the job up because these figures are not exactly what they were meant to be.

    I mean, speaking of sun eclipses, did you know there are at least four types of them, depending on the current distance between the moon and the earth? Apart from total eclipses there are also annular ones, where the arc size of the moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Sometimes the Moon is 11 percent too small to cover the Sun. And even when there is a total eclipse, the Moon's arc size may be actually bigger than Sun's, so where's the exact matching again? Not to mention the fact that many eclipses fall under the "hybrid" category - they are total in some parts of the earth and partial in other.

    Pole

  • one
    one

    Earnest,

    Most diehard logical people find "faith" something used by some as an easy way out.

    That's a bit of a generalization. What of Newton? Or Locke? Or countless others both past and present

    The facts: at "present" there is a good sample of "diehard logical people" in this board statistically speaking, do lyou want to guess what they think?

    I take "faith" is not his/your main "support".

    Certainly faith is the main support for believing what the Bible says. On what else do you base a belief in resurrection?

    Dont ask me.

    The words were directed to a cristian, he is the one who "beleives" (shows) AND he is also the one who stated that he beleives the bible based in scientific facts, not faith. So he is trying to prove it, but then city fan thowed some scientific data to disprove...

    btw

    nothing stand by itself, what is your "faith" standing on?

    hint: scripture shows that those who had great faith, including faith in jesus, were those who could see, experienced, something out of the ordinary or "miraclle". Maybe some who had great credibility may transmit "faith". Merely reading a news in the New York Times can make you beleive it, you have "tested" the source before.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Excellent comments, City Fan!

    For posters who want to see a blast from the past, and note that our latest discussions in this thread are "nothing new under the sun", see the following old JWD threads:

    The main thread, titled 'The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version', started by Norm and begun 27-March-2001: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/3770/1.ashx

    Mike's first mention of the magic number 40 and its multiples, 2-April-2001: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/3770/3.ashx

    My response (2nd post on the page) and Mike's response to me, 3-April-2001: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/3770/5.ashx

    More discussion, 3-April-2001: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/3770/6.ashx

    I also found a reference in my old files to discussions that Mike and I had on the old H2O forum in 1999, so it's obvious that we've been going at it for some time.

    Mike said:

    : You wrote: Anyone who thinks that there's something to biblical numerology ought to read the chapter "The Great Pyramid" in Martin Gardner's Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science (Dover Books, 1952, 1957). Given a sufficient amount of writing containing numerical references, a smart operator can get all sorts of amazing things to pop out.

    : Of course that is true.

    Indeed it is. Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal of Scotland, began publishing a series of books in 1864, starting with Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid. He found all sorts of prophetic significance in it. His favorite significant and prophetic number was five, and he found fiveness everywhere he looked in the Great Pyramid of Gizeh. In 1877 Joseph Seiss, an evangelical Lutheran Minister, published Miracle In Stone, in which he set forth a number of scriptures 'proving' the prophetic significance of the Great Pyramid. Gardner quotes Seiss as follows (p. 179):

    This intense fiveness could not have been accidental, and likewise corresponds with the arrangements of God, both in nature and revelation. Note the fiveness of termination to each limb of the human body, the five senses, the five books of Moses, the twice five precepts of the Decalogue.

    Seiss referred to many scriptures to 'prove' the prophetic significant of the Great Pyramid, including Isaiah 28:16, Zechariah 4:7, Job 38:6, 7, Psalm 118:22-24, Matthew 21:32, 44, and Acts 4;11. As most ex-JWs know, Charles Taze Russell took these notions to his own level of prophetic lunacy, using the prominence of Smyth and Seiss to lend credence to his lunatic ideas (cf. Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. III (Thy Kingdom Come), Study X, esp. p. 329).

    So, according to these 'faithful' Christians, none of whom would ever deliberately lie, the Bible itself was behind their speculations. But as Gardner wrote with regard to the material published by these men and plenty of others (pp. 184-5):

    As worthless as all this literature is, it is not entirely worthless if we can see in it an important object lesson. No book has ever demonstrated more clearly than Smyth's (the other Pyramid books, of course, to a lesser degree) how easy it is to work over an undigested mass of data and emerge with a pattern, which at first glance, is so intricately put together that it is difficult to believe it is nothing more than the prodcut of a man's brain. In a sense, this is true of almost all the books of pseudo-scientists. In one way or another, they do not let the data speak for themselves. Consciously or unconsciously, their preconceived dogmas twist and mold the objective facts into forms which support the dogmas, but have no basis in the exterior world. Sir Flinders Petrie, a famous archeologist who made some highly exact Pyramid measurements, reports that he once caught a Pyramidologist secretly filing down a projecting stone to make it conform to one of his theories!
    Perhaps this tendency to distort data operates in its subtlest forms in the great cyclical theories of history -- the works of men like Hegel, Spengler, Marx, and perhaps, though one must say it in hushed tones, the works of Toynbee. The ability of the mind to fool itself by an unconscious "fudging" on the facts -- an overemphasis here and underemphasis there -- is far greater than most people realize. The literature of Pyramidology stands as a permanent and pathetic tribute to that ability.
    Will the work of the prophetic historians mentioned above seem to readers of the year 2,000 as artificial in their constructions as the predictions of the Pyramidologists? Chesteron's hilarious fantasy of the future, Napoleon of Notting Hill (which opens, by the way, like Orwell's novel, in 1984) begins with these wise words:
    "The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning . . . and one of the games to which it is most attached is called,, "Keep to-morrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do soemthing else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun."

    Gardner also quotes Bertrand Russell, writing on the literature of the pyramidologists, as follows (pp. 180-1):

    I like also the men who study the Great Pyramid, with a view to deciphering its mystical lore. Many great books have been written on this subject, some of which have been presented to me by their authors. It is a singular fact that the Great Pyramid always predicts the history of the world accurately up to the date of publication of the book in question, but after that date it becomes less reliable. Generally the author expects, very soon, wars in Egypt, followed by Armageddon and the coming of the Antichrist, but by this time so many people have been recognized as Antichrist that the reader is reluctantly driven to scepticism.

    I have no doubt that you won't get the point, Mike.

    : But we should also remember Jesus never said, "There will be signs in the Great Pyramid of Giza," or "The sign of the Son of Man will appear in the Egyptian dessert." But Jesus did say, "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars," and "The sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky." If Jesus Himself had said that signs would later be found in the desserts of Egypt, specifically in Giza's Great Pyramid, would it be "unchristian" for Christ's followers to study that pyramid looking for the signs Christ referred to? Of course not.

    You ignore the fact that many pseudo-christian pyramidologists found just as much support for their ideas in the Bible as you find for yours, as I've briefly shown above. And just as their ideas have been abandoned by all but a few diehards (e.g., some of the Bible Students), I don't think that any but a tiny cadre of diehards will ever put stock in yours. I don't have any hard facts on this, but I doubt that you've convinced many intelligent Christians of your ideas up to this point.

    : However, Jesus did say, "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars" (Luke 21:25), and "The sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky" (Matthew 24:30).

    : Why then should we consider it wrong or "unchristian" for Christ's followers to study "the sun, moon and stars" which "appear in the sky" looking for the signs Christ referred to? With Christ's own words in mind, such studies cannot be considered wrong for Christians.

    Historical precedent, for one thing. As history shows, applying numerology to the Bible has always resulted in extreme embarassment to the proponents. The New Testament itself, for another. Matthew 24:44 states (NLT):

    You also must be ready all the time. For the Son of Man will come when least expected.

    The NWT puts this more pointedly:

    On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.

    It's obvious from this passage that a faithful Christian will not be looking for "signs in sun, moon and stars" that Christ is on the verge of coming (whatever that means).

    Another thing you've entirely ignored is the fact that many of the Bible's references to signs in "sun, moon and stars" are obviously symbolic. Here are the minimal relevant passages (NWT; I'm quoting only excerpts of the referenced texts):

    (Isaiah 13:1-16) 9 Look! The day of Jehovah itself is coming, cruel both with fury and with burning anger, in order to make the land an object of astonishment, and that it may annihilate [the land?s] sinners out of it. 10 For the very stars of the heavens and their constellations of Ke´sil will not flash forth their light; the sun will actually grow dark at its going forth, and the moon itself will not cause its light to shine.
    (Ezekiel 32:1-8) 7 ?And when you get extinguished I will cover [the] heavens and darken their stars. As for [the] sun, with clouds I shall cover it, and [the] moon itself will not let its light shine. 8 All the luminaries of light in the heavens -- I shall darken them on your account, and I will put darkness upon your land,? is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.
    (Joel 2:1-11) 2 10 Before it {the day of Jehovah} [the] land has become agitated, [the] heavens have rocked. Sun and moon themselves have become dark, and the very stars have withdrawn their brightness. 11 And Jehovah himself will certainly give forth his voice before his military force, for his camp is very numerous. For he who is carrying out his word is mighty; for the day of Jehovah is great and very fear-inspiring, and who can hold up under it?
    (Joel 2:28-32) 28 And after that it must occur that I shall pour out my spirit on every sort of flesh, and YOUR sons and YOUR daughters will certainly prophesy. As for YOUR old men, dreams they will dream. As for YOUR young men, visions they will see. 29 And even on the menservants and on the maidservants in those days I shall pour out my spirit. 30 And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. 31 The sun itself will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah. 32 And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.
    (Joel 3:1-17) 3 14 Crowds, crowds are in the low plain of the decision, for the day of Jehovah is near in the low plain of the decision. 15 Sun and moon themselves will certainly become dark, and the very stars will actually withdraw their brightness. 16 And out of Zion Jehovah himself will roar, and out of Jerusalem he will give forth his voice. And heaven and earth certainly will rock; but Jehovah will be a refuge for his people, and a fortress for the sons of Israel. 17 And YOU people will have to know that I am Jehovah YOUR God, residing in Zion my holy mountain. And Jerusalem must become a holy place; and as regards strangers, they will no more pass through her.

    The above passages from Joel are referenced in Acts 2:14-21 as being fulfilled shortly after Jesus' death. All of the above passages indicate that the "signs in sun, moon and stars" involve a dimming of these luminaries, and therefore have nothing to do with some kind of ratios of their physical sizes. The language obviously invokes lunar and solar eclipses, where the moon and sun are darkened. What dimming of the stars involves is not evident to me.

    Given the traditional use of "signs in sun, moon and stars" as illustrated above, and the fact that lots of other pre-Christian apocalyptic Jewish literature uses exactly the same symbolisms, it's a no-brainer that the New Testament apocalyptic passages involving these "signs" involve essentially the same symbolisms. Note the passages:

    (Matthew 24:1-35) 21 for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world?s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again... 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.
    (Mark 13:14-31) 19 for those days will be [days of] a tribulation such as has not occurred from [the] beginning of the creation which God created until that time, and will not occur again... 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling out of heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send forth the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth?s extremity to heaven?s extremity.
    (Luke 21:20-33) 23 ... For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. 25 Also, there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and [its] agitation, 26 while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

    If anyone isn't convinced by now that the above three references are entirely symbolic, read the passages from Revelation below. They obviously continue the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.

    (Revelation 6:12-17) 12 And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and a great earthquake occurred; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the entire moon became as blood, 13 and the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as when a fig tree shaken by a high wind casts its unripe figs. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and [every] island were removed from their places. 15 And the kings of the earth and the top-ranking ones and the military commanders and the rich and the strong ones and every slave and [every] free person hid themselves in the caves and in the rock-masses of the mountains. 16 And they keep saying to the mountains and to the rock-masses: "Fall over us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 because the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"
    (Revelation 8:10-12) 10 And the third angel blew his trumpet. And a great star burning as a lamp fell from heaven, and it fell upon a third of the rivers and upon the fountains of waters. 11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood. And a third of the waters turned into wormwood, and many of the men died from the waters, because these had been made bitter. 12 And the fourth angel blew his trumpet. And a third of the sun was smitten and a third of the moon and a third of the stars, in order that a third of them might be darkened and the day might not have illumination for a third of it, and the night likewise.

    Mike, I note that in some posts you've implied that the "signs" you claim are in "sun, moon and stars" are really only evident in the minds of true believers in our day, although you have not specified just when these supposed "signs" first became evident, or to which believers. Also, your interpretation requires that these signs become evident at some point. Unfortunately, you've missed the fact that the nuances of the language of the New Testament passages conflict with your ideas. How so? If these "signs" are nothing more than the ratios of the physical size of the sun and moon, then these "signs" have always been there, whereas the NT language clearly means that the "signs", whatever they are, appear suddenly, at a time in the future from the viewpoint of the writer. Also, the "sign of the Son of man" is obviously different from the "signs in sun, moon and stars". So your exposition ignores what these texts actually say.

    Furthermore, if the "signs" you claim are now evident are to have any meaning at all, they must become evident at some specific and clearly defined point in time. But it has been known since as far back as 1769 how far the earth is from the sun and the moon is from the earth, and their respective sizes (cf. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/horrocks_jeremiah.shtml "It was not until the two transits [of Venus] in 1761 and 1769 that more observations could be completed and a more accurate measure of the distance of the earth from the sun could be computed, approximately 93,000,000 miles."). So your supposed "signs", according to your logic, have been "evident" to "true believers" for at least 235 years. Of what value is that?

    : Following a fairly traditional understanding of Bible chronology (the same basic study published by Archbishop James Ussher nearly 400 years ago), JWs' date God's creation of Adam to 4026 BC. However, JWs begin their count back in time 20-21 years too early. For they do so beginning with a 607 BC date for Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem. But we now know the JW date for Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon is 20 years too early. We now know that Jerusalem fell in 587/6BC, not in 607 BC. So if we simply correct JW Bible chronology, using the correct date for Jerusalem's destruction, we arrive at the year 4006/4005 BC for Adam's creation.

    So you actually accept the JW chronology, except for the 607/587 problem. Whew!

    Surely you know that a great many bible scholars have shown that a literal interpretation of the geneologies in various parts of the Bible are internally inconsistent and are extremely unlikely to be anything more than mythical traditions. So to assign a date for Adam's creation as you've done is foolhardy at best.

    : JWs also assign a 2 BC date to the birth of Christ. However, nearly all New Testament historians tell us that Christ was born in about the year 5 BC, some three years earlier than JWs say.

    You're relying on outdated scholarship. According to the latest scholarship, Jesus' birth is dated to mid-January, 2 B.C. (Cf. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition, 1998, pp. 366-7). Luke 3 indicates that shortly after John the Baptist appeared, in the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1), Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry in the autumn. Finegan shows that the 15th year of Tiberius was 29 A.D., and that this year is established beyond question. Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was about 30 years old, and that is precisely consistent with a birth in 2 B.C. Obviously, a birth in 5 B.C. makes Jesus about 33 years old, so this date is wrong.

    : With these things in mind, once we have corrected the JWs' Bible chronology in these two areas, it certainly appears that Jesus Christ was born into this world exactly 4,000 years after God's creation of Adam.

    In view of the above discussion, your figure should be somewhere between 4003 and XXXX. Your assumption, therefore, is proved wrong.

    : When I as a Christian know that Bible chronology appears to date the birth of Christ exactly 4,000 years after the creation of Adam,

    See above.

    : and I then have my attention drawn to the fact that our sun has a diameter that is exactly "400 times that of our moon,"

    Wrong again. Other posters have shown this several times. My latest information is as follows:

    According to the latest measurements from NASA, the mean ratio is 400.67, to an accuracy of five significant digits. (see National Space Science Data Center: Sun: Volumetric mean radius 696,000 km; http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html ; Moon: Volumetric mean radius 1737.1 km; http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html. These radii translate to diameters of the sun: 864,948.7 miles; moon: 2158.77 miles. These figures, given in kilometers to five significant digits, are strongly confirmed by the fact that NASA has been quite successful in sending space probes to various destinations in our solar system. The figures you've quoted are obviously rounded off, although you obstinately refuse to acknowledge it.

    Since your argument here hinges on an exact 400:1 ratio, you've got another problem: It would be trivial for an omnipotent Creator, if he wanted to, to arrange things such that the diameters of the sun and moon were exactly in a ratio of 400:1. The fact that the ratio is not exact, therefore, proves that at best, this Creator did not want to, and at the least, he didn't care, and so the approximate ratio is a coincidence. In either case, your speculations are shown to be bunkum.

    Just so readers can see the exact figures involved, the above-mentioned NASA links give the following figures (note that the conversion ratio from kilometers to miles is 1.609344000 km per mile, which is derived from the exact ratio of 2.54 cm per inch):

    Moon:
    Volumetric Mean Diameter: 2158.77 miles (radius 1737.1 km)
    Avgerage distance from center of moon to center of earth: 238,897 miles (384,467 km)
    Minimum perigeee: 225,744 miles (363,300 km)
    Maximum apogee: 251,966 miles (405,500 km)

    Sun:
    Volumetric Mean Diameter: 864,950 miles (radius 696,000 km)
    Average distance from center of sun to center of earth: 92,957,130 miles (149,600,000 km)
    Minimum perihelion: 91,403,702 miles (147,100,000 km)
    Maximum aphelion: 94,510,558 miles (152,100,000 km)

    : and to the fact that the sun is also about "400 times as far away from us as the moon,"

    From the above figures, it?s clear that the ratio of the sun/earth and moon/earth distances varies from about 363 to 419, with an average of 389 -- not 400. So your statement is quite misleading.

    : and to the fact that the sun is also about "400 thousand times as bright as the full moon,"

    Abaddon has already shown that the ratio is about 402,000:1, so you're wrong again.

    : and to the fact that we can observe a total eclipse over any one spot on earth "on average about every 400 years,"

    Again not so. Because solar eclipses occur both as total eclipses, where the moon completely blanks out the sun, and as annular eclipses, where the moon is completely in front of the sun but is too far from the earth to completely blank it out, leaving a ring or annulus of light around the dark moon, only occasionally is the moon at just the right distance to exactly cover the sun. In fact, an eclipse can be annular at one location and gradually switch to total as the event progresses, and even switch back to annular. There are almost twice as many annular eclipses on average as total eclipses. The best estimates I?ve been able to find for the average frequency of solar eclipses is about once every 140 years for annular and total combined, about once every 225 years for annular eclipses, and about every 375 years for total eclipses. My point here is twofold: the exact magical number 400 does not appear in eclipse phenomena as you argue. Quite in contrast to the impression you give, in the 2 out of 3 times where the moon might cover, as you've stated at other times, "the sun in the sky as perfectly as a lid fits its own jar", it actually doesn?t quite fit.

    Another point on eclipse variability: Surely the Creator, if he really wanted to put physical signs in the sun and moon, could have arranged things such that the moon had a precisely circular orbit around the earth, and the earth-moon system a precisely circular orbit around the sun. And, of course, an exact ratio of 400:1 in diameters and distances -- a ratio that would be perfect, unchanging, to beyond our limits of measurement. But the fact that the moon recedes from the earth at about 5 cm per year precludes even that. That recession is inevitable due to the basic physics of spinning bodies (physics created by the Creator) with frictional losses due to tides. So no matter what, the ratio you so admire is always different from 400:1 except at a few instants of time.

    : and to the fact that our galaxy is said to have "400 billion stars,"

    Once again you're relying on outdated figures, Mike. If you read that in any literature older than a few years, you're not taking into account new findings. Recently, astronomers have discovered that the galaxy actually contains a continuous range of sizes of large objects, from large planets like Jupiter, to super-large planets that just barely didn't ignite and form a star, to tiny stars that just barely ignited, to gigantic stars. These tiny stars are apparently far more numerous than larger stars, but because they're so small and faint they can only be observed indirectly. There are also a huge number of "dark stars", including white dwarfs too dim to observe from the earth, and neutron stars that can be observed only when interacting strongly with matter that falls on them. That might put the total number of stars at 4 trillion or 40 trillion or who-knows-what?, depending on how you decide to define a star. Where does that leave your argument?

    : is it really unreasonable for me to believe that these "400s" in the sun, moon and stars may well be the signs Christ was referring to?

    Yes. It's just as unreasonable as Piazzi Smyth, Joseph Seiss, Charles Taze Russell, and a host of other looney-bin candidates claiming that the number five has prophetic significance. Just as the Bible doesn't say anything directly about the significance of the number five, but contains a number of references to it that these guys interpreted as being prophetically significant, so you are finding significance only in your own personal interpretation -- an interpretation that most bible scholars would laugh at.

    : For the number 400 certainly can be viewed as a short form or "sign" form of the number 4,000,

    Sure. But why keep to the base ten numbering system? Why not use base 60, as the Babylonians did? Why not take the square root and round off? Why not divide 40-patterns into 5 x 8 patterns and find all manner of multiples thereof? Where do you stop?

    : the year of Christ's birth counting from Adam's creation. Thus, it seems quite reasonable for me to believe that the number 400 may well have been chosen by God to serve as signs of Christ.

    In view of the above facts, and those presented by other posters, I think it's almost self-evident why such a belief is unreasonable.

    : Though you have dismissed my biblical and astronomical studies as mere "numerology" and have unfairly compared them to studying the dimensions of the Great Pyramid,

    I think that the above references prove irrefutably why my comparisons are valid.

    : I think you know better. You know that the Bible often uses the number 40,

    Yes, but as you yourself have admitted, it's virtually always a rounded number. But your claims hinge on it being an exact number.

    : obviously in some symbolic way. You also know to be true what Augustine wrote long ago, "Ignorance of numbers, too, prevents us from understanding things that are set down in Scripture in a figurative and mystical way. A candid mind, if I may so speak, cannot but be anxious, for example, to ascertain what is meant by the fact that Moses and Elijah, and our Lord Himself, all fasted for forty days." (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, 16:25)

    In the last few years, I've seen comments by good bible scholars that Augustine did untold damage to Christianity by introducing his own interpretations of things not stated directly in scripture. Therefore, I don't care what he wrote. He's just another opinionated commentator.

    : You used to be known on this board and others as a fair minded skeptic.

    I think I still am. My presentations have been entirely fact-based and all references are easily checked.

    : But by not speaking one word in my defense while some here call me "insane" has caused me to wonder if you have lost all fairness and objectivity and have now become nothing more than an ordinary Bible basher.

    Mike, why would you think I'd defend something as crazy as biblical numerology? Or anyone who promotes it? You're obviously not insane, but I really must question your common sense in this area. Remember, as I pointed out in the beginning of this post, that you and I and others have discussed these things since 1999, and I don't know how much further back you've been into it. So it's evident that you refuse to learn, despite all manner of objections being raised. It saddens me that, despite all the factual evidence presented against your grasping-at-straws interpretations of the bible, you still refuse to acknowledge that the figures you claim are exact are not exact at all. For example, in your above post to one, you said:

    : I certainly realize that the 400 X distance ratio in comparing the earth's distance from the sun to the earth's distance from the moon is not a constant. In fact that ratio is only exact twice every lunar cycle, in other words, about twice a month. But it can truthfully be said that the sun is always exactly 400 X the size of the moon, in diameter, and it is always about 400 X as far away.

    How can you continue to restate this falsehood? You know the facts.

    Mike, at this point I can only conclude that your desire to believe, at all costs, has driven you to a state of mind where you reject facts contrary to your desired beliefs, and retain only those in line with them. Although a common malady among true believers of all sorts, healthily skeptical people can see right through the self-deceptions. I think you really ought to do more skeptical research in this matter, in accord with the facts I've presented in this post.

    AlanF

  • Sunchild
    Sunchild

    Holy Moses, this thread's still alive?! It's amazing how much nothing can be accomplished in so many pages.

    Oh, and before I forget again, HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!!!! ::throws confetti::

  • a Christian
    a Christian

    Alan, First I want to thank you for the tone of your post. It was neither insulting or mean spirited. Which is more than I can say for the posts of some here.Your comments were all intelligent and constructive. You wrote: Excellent comments, City Fan! I was already well aware of the information City Fan posted and already noted earlier in this thread on more than one occasion that the sun to moon distance ratio is very seldom exactly 400. In fact I did so on this same page (page 12) just five posts up from yours where I wrote: " I certainly realize that the 400 X distance ratio in comparing the earth's distance from the sun to the earth's distance from the moon is not a constant. In fact that ratio is only exact twice every lunar cycle, in other words, about twice a month." I said the same thing in my original post on this subject matter on page 8.

    You wrote: [there is] "nothing new under the sun". ... I also found a reference in my old files to discussions that Mike and I had on the old H2O forum in 1999, so it's obvious that we've been going at it for some time. Yup, I've been studying this subject matter for several years now. During this time I have discussed this subject matter and all it entails with many people, including some of the world's most highly respected scholars in several fields of study. So, when you say, there "nothing new under the sun," for me that includes virtually all of the comments you have just made. You wrote: Seiss referred to many scriptures to 'prove' the prophetic significant of the Great Pyramid, including Isaiah 28:16, Zechariah 4:7, Job 38:6, 7, Psalm 118:22-24, Matthew 21:32, 44, and Acts 4;11. None of those scriptures say anything at all about the Great Pyramid or any structure in Egypt. That being the case, since the Bible does specifically say that "there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars," I believe I have been on much more solid ground, biblically speaking, looking closely at the physical heavens for possible indications of divine design than those who have studied the Great Pyramid looking for the same.

    You wrote: I doubt that you've convinced many intelligent Christians of your ideas up to this point. You're right about that. Because I have not discussed my ideas with many intelligent Christians. The fact is I have not yet shared my entire study with anyone. And without someone actually closely reviewing my entire study, including all of my studies on Old and New Testament chronology, they could not possibly be convinced that my understanding of this matter is correct. I believe that will change in the not too distant future when my studies are published. You wrote: As history shows, applying numerology to the Bible has always resulted in extreme embarrassment to the proponents. That is because they have used Pyramid numerology and Bible chronology to predict the time of Christ's second coming. I am not doing that. I have only said that the signs I see in the sun, moon and stars point to the fact that 4,000 years past between Adam's creation and Christ's birth.

    You wrote: Another thing you've entirely ignored is the fact that many of the Bible's references to signs in "sun, moon and stars" are obviously symbolic. ... All of the above passages indicate that the "signs in sun, moon and stars" involve a dimming of these luminaries, and therefore have nothing to do with some kind of ratios of their physical sizes. I agree with you. However, all of the passages you cited were not the ones I have cited in reference to, "the sign of the Son of Man." I believe before Christ's return the passages you cited will be fulfilled in a symbolic way, when Christianity is outlawed. At that time, "stars will fall from heaven," "the powers of the heavens will be shaken," and "the sun and the moon (heavenly, spiritual lights) will be darkened." However, that does not mean that all passages in Scripture which refer to "the sun, moon and stars" and "the sign of the Son of Man" appearing "in the sky" must be understood to refer only to the non-physical heavens.

    You wrote: If these "signs" are nothing more than the ratios of the physical size of the sun and moon, then these "signs" have always been there ... it has been known since as far back as 1769 how far the earth is from the sun and the moon is from the earth, and their respective sizes .... for at least 235 years. I never said these signs "are nothing more than the ratios of the physical size of the sun and moon". I believe for someone to see and understand these signs they must possess far more than a basic knowledge of astronomy. I believe they must also possess a proper understanding of Bible chronology. You wrote: Also, the "sign of the Son of man" is obviously different from the "signs in sun, moon and stars". That is not obvious to me.

    You wrote: So you actually accept the JW chronology, except for the 607/587 problem. Whew! No. They have much wrong. For instance, they use Ezek. 4's references to "390" years of "the sin of the house of Israel" to say that the kingdom of Israel was divided following the death of Solomon 390 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. This cannot possibly be a correct interpretation. For as Edwin R. Thiele clearly showed in his "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," no such chronological reconstruction of the divided kingdom is possible without rejecting many very well established historical facts. My study, which I believe is the most thorough ever done on this subject, and which largely agrees with Thiele's work shows that Jerusalem fell in 587 and the kingdom was divided in 935, 348 years earlier, not 390 years earlier as JWs tell us.

    You wrote: Surely you know that a great many bible scholars have shown that a literal interpretation of the geneologies in various parts of the Bible are internally inconsistent and are extremely unlikely to be anything more than mythical traditions. I have studied these issues at great length and disagree with such Bible scholars. I wrote: JWs also assign a 2 BC date to the birth of Christ. However, nearly all New Testament historians tell us that Christ was born in about the year 5 BC, some three years earlier than JWs say.

    You responded: You're relying on outdated scholarship. According to the latest scholarship, Jesus' birth is dated to mid-January, 2 B.C. (Cf. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition, 1998, pp. 366-7). Of course, I own and have read Finegan's latest book on this subject, along with a copy of his earlier work. I disagree with his latest conclusions for many very good reasons. You wrote: Luke 3 indicates that shortly after John the Baptist appeared, in the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1), Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry in the autumn. Finegan shows that the 15th year of Tiberius was 29 A.D., and that this year is established beyond question. I agree with all of that except the word "shortly." I believe John began his ministry 3 and 1/2 years before Christ began his ministry. You wrote: Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was about 30 years old, and that is precisely consistent with a birth in 2 B.C. Obviously, a birth in 5 B.C. makes Jesus about 33 years old, so this date is wrong. I believe the solution to this problem can be found by taking a closer look at the word Luke used in Luke 3:23 which has been widely translated as "about." That Greek word is "hosei." Bible historians who date the birth of Christ to about 5 BC believe that Luke's saying that Jesus was "about 30" in 29 AD allows room for us to understand that Jesus could have been two or three years past 30 when he began his ministry. They also tell us that "hosei," the word Luke chose to use before the number 30, actually indicates a greater indefiniteness than the Greek word "hos" which Luke used elsewhere to convey the thought that the number he mentioned may not have been exactly as stated. And, Greek lexicons indicate that "hosei" may have actually been used here by Luke to mean more than just "about." They show that Luke may have used this Greek word to say that Jesus was then beginning his ministry "as if" he were 30, "as though" he were 30, "like" he was 30 or since he "had already been" 30. Why? Because Jewish men usually began their service to God at age 30 and were not permitted to do so before that age.
    Those who believe that Christ was born some time after 4 BC argue against such understandings. However, I have found what I consider to be strong biblical evidence which clearly shows that Christ must have been born in the year 5 BC.
    For I believe that the Bible very clearly indicates that John the baptist began his ministry as "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord,' " (Luke 3:4 ) three and a half years before Jesus began his ministry. If this is true, and Jesus began his ministry in the fall of 29 AD, as most New Testament historians tell us, then John must have begun his ministry, preparing the people of Israel for the coming of their Messiah, in the spring of 26 AD. And since John was a Levite, and Levites according to the Jewish law began their service to God shortly after turning 30 years of age (Numbers 4:1-3, 21-23, 29-30, 34-35, 46-49), John must have been born no later than the spring of 5 BC.

    However, I believe it makes more sense to assign a late 6 BC date to the birth of John the baptist. For it seems unlikely that John would have begun serving God as "a voice crying in the wilderness," (Luke 3:4) immediately upon turning thirty. For John probably would have served God, for at least a brief period of time, in the way that all the men from his tribe of Levi did, performing traditional priestly duties at God's temple in Jerusalem. Doing so was, after all, both a strong family tradition (Luke 1:5-80) and something that was legally required of all Levite men. But it also seems quite likely that John would not have continued to serve in that capacity for very long. For he knew from what the angel, Gabriel, had told his father, Zechariah, that God had assigned him a much greater work to do. (Luke 1:11-19)

    Of course, if John was born in late 6 BC then Jesus must have been born near the spring of 5 BC. For the scriptures clearly indicate that John was about five months older than Jesus. (Luke 1:36)

    So, Christ's birth can be closely dated by accurately identifying the length of time John preached before he baptized Christ. And, as I have shown, if it can be clearly demonstrated that John did so for three and a half years, then we can confidently assign a 5 BC date to Christ's birth. I am now strongly convinced that Jesus Christ was born in the year of 5 BC, and probably the spring of 5 BC. For I now strongly believe that John began serving as "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord,' " three and a half years before Jesus Christ's ministry began. And that he did so after first serving God as a Levite priest for several months. How did I become convinced of this? By answering the following questions. Questions Finegan did not answer.

    Why was John the baptist prophetically referred to as Elijah? (Malachi 4:5,6; Matt. 11:12-14; 17:10-13; Luke 1:17) Why was he compared to Elijah rather than some other prophet such as Elisha or Jeremiah or Isaiah or Ezekiel or Daniel or Zechariah or any one of God's many other prophets of years gone by? Though John denied that he really was Elijah (John 1:21), he clearly went to great lengths to copy part of Elijah's prophetic ministry. To make it quite plain exactly what he was doing, John even dressed like Elijah. (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6) Why?

    I have found there is really only one way to answer these questions. The answers are found by studying the prophetic life of Elijah. Specifically, the part of his prophetic life which we read about in 1 Kings chapters 17 and 18. There we find that, during the reign of King Ahab, Elijah prophesied that in northern Israel there would "be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except by my word." (1 Kings 17:1) Elijah's prophecy proved true when a long drought followed causing a severe famine in the land. At the end of those "few years" Elijah introduced a long awaited and greatly needed shower of rain to Israel.

    Nowhere in the Old Testament are we told exactly how many years passed before Elijah ushered in the rain Israel had so long been waiting for. However, the New Testament provides us with this information twice. First, in Luke 4:25, Jesus himself told us that, "In Elijah's time the sky was shut for three and a half years." Later James told us that, "Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed and the heavens gave rain." (James 5:17,18)

    Why does the New Testament tell us exactly how long Elijah served as God's prophet while the people of his land waited for rain? I believe it does so in order to provide us with the chronological information we need to determine the time of Christ's birth.
    For just as Elijah served as a prophet of God for three and a half years while the people of Israel were longing for rain to come to their land, John the baptist prophesied "the coming of the Lord" while the people of Israel were longing for the Messianic rain to come to them. This Messianic "rain" was prophesied to come to Israel in the 72nd Psalm. There we read in part, "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal Son with your righteousness. He will judge your people in righteousness and your afflicted ones with justice. He will be like rain falling on a mown field, like showers watering the earth. All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him. All nations will be blessed through him and they will call him blessed." (Ps. 72: 1, 2, 6, 11, 17)
    With this Messianic prophecy in mind, it seems clear why the New Testament informs us of exactly how long Elijah prophesied while waiting for rain to fall on Israel. Why? So we today can understand that the latter day "Elijah," John the baptist, prophesied "the coming of the Lord" for exactly three and a half years before he introduced the long awaited and greatly needed Messianic "rain" to the Jewish people. (John 1:29-31)
    Now, you may ask, "Doesn't the Bible tell us that John the baptist began his ministry in 29 AD, 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar'? And if it does, since Jesus also began his ministry in 29 AD, doesn't that prove that John's ministry could have only been about six months long, since it began in the same year that Christ also began his ministry?"
    I believe the answer to both of these questions is, "No." The Bible does not tell us that John the Baptist began his ministry in "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" which was 29 AD. It only tell us that in that year "the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the desert." (Luke 3:1, 2) Now, the traditional thinking has been that "the word of God" there referred to instructed John to begin "calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.' " (Luke 3:4) The problem with this understanding is that it is only an assumption. And considering other information given to us in scripture, it does not appear to be a valid one. The Bible does not record any instructions given by God directly to John, telling him either how he should conduct his ministry or when he should begin it. It also seems unlikely that God would have ever given John such instructions.
    Why does this seem unlikely? Because scripture indicates that John was informed from the time he was an infant what God wanted him to do and when God wanted him to do it. Luke tells us that before John's birth his father Zechariah was informed by an angel that his future son had been chosen by God to minister to the people of Israel in a very important way. Zechariah was told that the child he was to name John would, "make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17) Zechariah later spoke to his son John, saying in part, "You, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most high; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins." (Luke 1 :76, 77) Clearly, Zechariah understood that his son John had been chosen by God to prepare the people of Israel for the coming of their long awaited savior. It is also clear that Zechariah explained to his son exactly what kind of ministry God had chosen him to perform.
    But what indication do we have that John did not need personal instructions from God telling him when he should begin his special ministry? The Bible provides us with the answer to this question. For it tells us that John was from the priestly tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5-14) And according to the law of God recorded by Moses, all Levite men "at the Lord's command" were to begin their service to God at thirty years of age. Certainly John, who received instructions in the Law from his father Zechariah, was well aware of this command of the Lord recorded in scripture. John also must have known that all the men in his family had begun their service to God at this same time in their lives. These things being so, we can see that John would have required no personal instructions from God telling him either what He wanted John to do or when He wanted John to do it.
    But if "the word of God" which "came to John in the desert in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" did not instruct John to then begin his ministry, what did God then tell him? I believe that the evidence shows that the pronouncement of God, referred to in Luke 3:1, 2, which then "came to John in the desert" is the same pronouncement of God recorded for us in Matt. 3:17. There we find the words God spoke immediately following John's baptism of Jesus Christ. Matthew tells us that at that time "a voice from heaven said, 'This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased.' " Though God may have spoken to John in the desert on more than one occasion, the only time the Bible records in detail a "word of God" there coming to John was this "word of God" which came to John at the time of Christ's baptism. Since God's word spoken at this time divinely confirmed the identity of the long awaited Messiah, it seems reasonable to believe that this very important pronouncement was the "word of God" referred to in Luke 3:1, 2, which "came to John in the desert in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar."
    According to this understanding, Luke 3:1, 2 does not tell us that John the baptist began his ministry "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar," but rather that John's ministry culminated in that year with his baptism of Jesus Christ. By understanding Luke chapter three in this way we find that John did not necessarily begin his service to God in 29 AD. We also find that Luke chapter three does not limit the time John prepared the way for Christ to only a few months. Rather, it allows us to understand that John began his ministry three and a half years before introducing a greatly needed "rain" to Israel (Ps. 72: 1, 2, 6, 11, 17), just as Elijah had done before him. (1 Kings 17, 18)
    With this understanding of Luke 3:1, 2 in mind, we can also appreciate why Luke so carefully recorded the time of the event he was then referring to, and by so doing attached such great importance to it. Because in Luke 3:1, 2 Luke was not telling us when John the baptist began his ministry. Rather, he was recording for posterity the exact time that Jesus Christ began the most important service to God and mankind that has ever been rendered.
    To confirm this understanding is correct there is one more point that should be made. That is, that if Luke's words recorded in Luke 3:1,2 were intended to date the beginning of John the baptist's ministry, then Luke attached more historical significance to the ministry of John than he did to the ministry of Jesus Christ. For in Luke 3:1, 2, in an effort to help us accurately determine the time of the event he was there recording, Luke painstakingly listed seven different contemporary historical public figures by name, and five separate geographical regions which were controlled at the time by the five governmental officials on his list. If, as has been suggested, Luke 3:1, 2 is referring to the time John the baptist's ministry began, Luke went to great lengths to tell us the time John began his ministry but made no attempt at all in his gospel to tell us of the time when Christ's ministry began.
    There is only one sensible explanation for Luke's seemingly confused sense of priority. That is, to understand that in Luke 3:1, 2, Luke was not recording the time when John the baptist began his ministry. Rather, as stated earlier, he was recording the time when Jesus Christ began his public service to God.
    As a final thought in support of this understanding, I will point out that Luke tells us that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when "the word of God came to John" it came to him while he was already "in the desert." There John served God as "a voice crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.' " In other words, Luke 3:1, 2 tells us that when the word of God came to John, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, John's ministry had already begun. And I believe all the facts from history and scripture combine to show that it had begun three and a half years earlier, in the spring of 26 AD. And if John began his ministry upon turning 30 years old, as all Levite men did, and if he first served as a priest for a brief but respectable period of time, as all Levite men were required to do, then we can reasonably conclude that John was most likely born late in the year 6 BC. And if we do, since John was about five months older than Jesus, we must also conclude that Jesus was most likely born in the spring of 5 BC. In confirmation of this conclusion you may find it very interesting to read an article on the Star of Bethlehem by Colen Humphreys here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/S&CB%2010-93Humphreys.html I wrote: : I then have my attention drawn to the fact that our sun has a diameter that is exactly "400 times that of our moon,"

    You responded: Wrong again. Other posters have shown this several times. I have learned to refer to the 400 ratio between the moon's diameter and the sun's diameter as "nearly exact" from now on. Though I think you should be able to forgive me for my past error since 864,000 miles and 2,160 miles are the most widely cited numbers for their respective diameters. I wrote: : and to the fact that the sun is also about "400 times as far away from us as the moon," You responded: From the above figures, it?s clear that the ratio of the sun/earth and moon/earth distances varies from about 363 to 419, with an average of 389 -- not 400. So your statement is quite misleading. Notice the quotation marks around that statement. Notice also that I used the word "about" to qualify it, which the author of the article at the NASA web site I quoted from did not bother to do. I wrote: and to the fact that the sun is also about "400 thousand times as bright as the full moon,"

    You responded: Abaddon has already shown that the ratio is about 402,000:1, so you're wrong again. I am? 402,000 is not "about 400 thousand"? Since when? Again my source did not even use the qualifying word "about" as I did.

    I wrote: and to the fact that we can observe a total eclipse over any one spot on earth "on average about every 400 years,"

    You responded: Again not so. You then proceeded to talk to us about annular eclipses, etc., while my statement referred to only to "total eclipses." Finally you wrote: about every 375 years for total eclipses. However, my quoted source (The Sun - Our Star, Robert W. Noyes, 1982, page 145) tells us that, "The average time between total eclipse paths crossing one location is about every 400 years." You don't even cite a reference for your "about every 375 years" statement. But you expect all here to accept your source as being more accurate than mine. And I'm sure most here will.

    You wrote: Surely the Creator, if he really wanted to put physical signs in the sun and moon, could have arranged things such that the moon had a precisely circular orbit around the earth, and the earth-moon system a precisely circular orbit around the sun. And, of course, an exact ratio of 400:1 in diameters and distances -- a ratio that would be perfect, unchanging, to beyond our limits of measurement. Yes, He could have. But I think He was precise enough to catch our attention. So much so that many astronomers marvel at our earth's sun/moon/400/diameter/distance ratio, which they tell us is responsible for producing total eclipses, calling it "a coincidence unlike anything else in nature," and a "serendipitous relationship unmatched in the solar system."

    I wrote: and to the fact that our galaxy is said to have "400 billion stars,"

    You responded: you're relying on outdated figures, Mike. If you read that in any literature older than a few years, you're not taking into account new findings. Recently, astronomers have discovered that the galaxy actually contains a continuous range of sizes of large objects, from large planets like Jupiter, to super-large planets that just barely didn't ignite and form a star, to tiny stars that just barely ignited, to gigantic stars. These tiny stars are apparently far more numerous than larger stars, but because they're so small and faint they can only be observed indirectly. There are also a huge number of "dark stars", including white dwarfs too dim to observe from the earth, and neutron stars that can be observed only when interacting strongly with matter that falls on them. Ok, so maybe I should say, "400 billion observable light emitting stars".

    I wrote: For the number 400 certainly can be viewed as a short form or "sign" form of the number 4,000,

    You responded: Sure. But why keep to the base ten numbering system? Why not use base 60, as the Babylonians did? Why not take the square root and round off? Why not divide 40-patterns into 5 x 8 patterns and find all manner of multiples thereof? Where do you stop?

    Why would God use mankind's most popular numerical system (the base 10 numbering system)?

    For the same reason His only begotten Son, "became flesh and lived for a while among us." (John 1:14) God loves us. So he speaks to us in our own language so we can understand him. Of course, it is also my position that God put these signs in the sky to help people in our day put their faith in Jesus Christ. And nearly all people today use the base ten numbering system.
    You wrote: you still refuse to acknowledge that the figures you claim are exact are not exact at all. For example, in your above post to one, you said: : I certainly realize that the 400 X distance ratio in comparing the earth's distance from the sun to the earth's distance from the moon is not a constant. In fact that ratio is only exact twice every lunar cycle, in other words, about twice a month. But it can truthfully be said that the sun is always exactly 400 X the size of the moon, in diameter, and it is always about 400 X as far away. ..... How can you continue to restate this falsehood?

    How can you continue to call it a falsehood? I cited several very credible sources which gave the dimensions of the sun and moon. The ratio of those dimensions as cited is an exact 400. You and Abaddon cited other sources which give a very slight difference in those dimensions. If your sources are correct and mine are incorrect then the ratio is about 400.5. If that is the case then I should have said "an almost exact 400". For Abaddon to have repeatedly called me a liar over this very small difference was ridiculous.

    The fact of the matter is the sun/moon diameter ratio may indeed be an exact 400. For, from what I have read, measuring the sun's diameter appears to be a very inexact science, as pointed out here: http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/~adelabr/Leister01_28.pdf#search='solar%20diameter%20measurement'

    The variability of the solar diameter Observations of the solar radius display considerable variations. Most of this dispersion
    arises because the various observation methods do not directly measure
    a true solar radius. Many methods that are in use for measuring the apparent
    solar diameter consists in directly measuring the angle between opposite limbs,
    besides the other type of methods that consists in timing the duration between
    sucessive contacts of opposite limbs with fiducial line on the sky.
    Several interpretations of ground observations have been proposed in order
    to describe the phenomenon of solar radius variations and have lead to contradictory
    results.
    Measurements of the solar radius performed during the Mauder
    minimum deserves special attention.
    In fact this period characterized by the
    low activity of the Sun showed that the apparent radius enlarged. These results
    associated at lower periods of Sun activity in modern series conducted by Gilliland
    (Gilliland 1981) and Laclare (Laclare et al. 1996) found a negative correlation
    of radius variations with the solar cycle, while other works such as Ultrich
    (Ultrich and Bertello 1995) and Noel (Noel 1997) claimed to be the opposite.

    Mike

  • a Christian
    a Christian

    I've had trouble getting the link to this article to work. So, I am posting it here in its entirety.

    Colin Humphreys The Star of Bethlehem

    From Science and Christian Belief , Vol 5, (October 1995): 83-101 Used by permission.


    Evidence from the Bible and astronomy suggests that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet which was visible in 5 BC, and described in ancient Chinese records. A comet uniquely fits the description in Matthew of a star which newly appeared, which travelled slowly through the sky against the star background and which 'stood over' Bethlehem. The evidence points to Jesus being bom in the period 9 March-4 May, 5 BC, probably around Passover time: 13-27 April, 5 BC. Birth in the spring is consistent with the account in Luke that there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby keeping watch over their flock by night. Birth in 5 BC also throws light upon the problem of the census of Caesar Augustus. A new chronology of the life of Christ is given which is consistent with the available evidence. This chronology suggests that Christ died close to his 37th birthday.

    Keywords: astronomy, star of Bethlehem, birth of Christ, nativity, chronology of the New Testament, the Magi, comets, Christmas, Passover.

    1. Introduction

    What was the star of Bethlehem? Did it really exist? Most modern theologians (e.g. ref. 1 ) regard the reference to the star in Matthew's gospel as 'midrash', that is a story made up to satisfy an Old Testament prophecy, in this case that of Numbers 24:17, 'a star shall come forth out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel'. On the other hand, some writers regard the star of Bethlehem as a specially created miraculous object, beyond the bounds of scientific explanation. The question of whether a celestial phenomenon reported in ancient literature in an historical context was a real astronomical object is one which occurs quite frequently. in all such cases it seems best to consider as a working hypothesis that the report is correct, and to investigate whether any astronomical phenomenon exists which fits the report.

    The difficulties of treating the star of Bethlehem as a real astronomical object should not be underestimated. For example, the New Testament scholar Brown' states 'a star that rose in the East, appeared over Jerusalem, turned south to Bethlehem, and then came to rest over a house would have constituted a celestial phenomenon unparalleled in astronomical history: yet it received no notice in the records of the times.' Similar sceptical statements abound in modem commentaries. However it will be shown in this paper (see also ref. 2 ) that this statement of Brown is in fact incorrect: there is an astronomical object which fits very well the account in Matthew's gospel, and which also received notice in the Chinese records of the times.

    If an astronomical object can be identified with the characteristics described in Matthew and other ancient manuscripts, this information may throw light on the long standing problem of the date of the Nativity. In AD 525 a Roman scholar and monk, Dionysius Exiguus, fixed the AD origin of our present calendar (Anno Domini = in the year of our Lord) so that Jesus was circumcised in the year AD 1 on January 1 (8 days, counting inclusively, after his birth on 25th December the previous year). More recently dates ranging from 20 BC to AD 10 have been given for the year of the Nativity. 3 , 4 Concerning the day, although 25 December is firmly fixed in our calendar, this is unlikely if the arguments in the present paper are accepted. In this paper we consider a combination of astronomical and historical evidence which may be used to identify the star of Bethlehem and to determine the date of the Nativity.

    The earliest known account of the star of Bethlehem is in Matthew 2:1- 12. Most scholars believe that the final text of this gospel was composed in about AD 80 (some scholars give an earlier date, e.g. ref. 5 ) from sources written in earlier times. Presumably one of these sources recorded the star of Bethlehem and the visit of the Magi. The account in Matthew describes how the Magi saw a star which they believed heralded the birth of the Messiah-king of the Jews. They travelled to Jerusalem and informed King Herod of the time when the star appeared, which indicates that the star was not a customary sight. The advisers of Herod told the Magi that, according to the prophesy of Micah, the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem, so the Magi journeyed there. The star moved before them and 'stood over' Bethlehem. The Magi found the place where the child was and presented him with gifts.

    2. The Magi

    The tradition that the Magi were kings dates from the sixth century AD, and is almost certainly legendary. According to Herodotus (1:101), Magi existed in Persia in the sixth century BC, they were a priestly group among the Medes who performed religious ceremonies and interpreted signs and portents. Persia (now Iran) conquered neighbouring Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and from the fourth century BC onwards Magi were increasingly associated with astronomy and astrology, the observation and the 'interpretation' of the stars being closely related in ancient times. Babylon (in Mesopotamia) was the world centre of astronomy and astrology at that time and Magi were important members of the Babylonian royal court. In about 586 BC the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem and took the Jews into Exile.From the time of the Exile onwards Babylon contained a strong Jewish colony, and the knowledge of the Jewish prophecies of a Saviour-King, the Messiah, may have been well-known to the Babylonians and to the Magi.

    In the Hellenistic age some of the Magi left Babylon and travelled to neighbouring countries to teach and practise astronomy/astrology, which was a core educational subject in the ancient world (e.g. Plato, The Republic, 529). Thus the first century AD Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria stated that the student of astronomy perceives 'timely signs of coming events' since 'the stars were made for signs' (De Opificio Mundi, 22). There is a strong tradition that the Magi who visited Jesus came from Arabia (now Saudi Arabia), which lies between Mesopotamia and Palestine. Thus in about AD 160 Justin Martyr wrote 'Magi from Arabia came to him [Herod]' and in about AD 96 Clement of Rome 6 , associated frankincense and myrrh, two of the gifts of the Magi, with 'the East, that is the districts near Arabia'. We conclude that the Magi who saw the star of Bethlehem were astronomers/astrologers, who may have been familiar with the Jewish prophecies of a Saviour-King, and who probably came from Arabia or Mesopotamia, countries to the east of Palestine. Matthew 2:1 simply states 'Magi from the East arrived in Jerusalem'. It is important to realise that there are many references in ancient literature to Magi visiting kings and emperors in other countries. For example, Tiridates, the King of Armenia, led a procession of Magi to pay homage to Nero in Rome in AD 66 (Suetonius, Nero 13 and 30; Tacitus, Annals, 16:23: Dio Cassius, Roman History, 63:1), and Josephus records that Magi also visited Herod in about 10 BC. Thus a visit by the Magi to pay homage to Jesus, the new King of the Jews, would not have appeared as particularly unusual to readers of Matthew's gospel. However, the Magi must have had an unmistakably clear astronomical/astrological message to start them on their journey.

    3. Characteristics of the Star of Bethlehem

    There are several specific characteristics of the star of Bethlehem recorded in Matthew's gospel which, if accepted, allow the type of astronomical object to be identified uniquely. The characteristics are as follows:

    (i) It was a star which had newly appeared. Matthew 2:7 states 'Then Herod summoned the Magi secretly and ascertained from them the exact time when the star had appeared'.

    (ii) It travelled slowly through the sky against the star background. The Magi 'saw his star in the east' (Matthew 2:2) then they came to Jerusalem where Herod sent them to Bethlehem, then 'they went on their way and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them' (Matthew 2:9). Since Bethlehem is to the south of Jerusalem the clear implication is that the star of Bethlehem moved slowly through the sky from the east to the south in the time taken for the Magi to travel from their country to Jerusalem, probably about one or two months (see later).

    (iii) The star 'stood over' Bethlehem. Matthew 2:9 records that the star 'went ahead of them and stood over the place where the child was'. Popular tradition has the star pointing out the very stable in which Christ was born, but Matthew neither states nor implies this: according to Matthew, viewed from Jerusalem the star stood over the place where the child was born, i.e. Bethlehem.

    If the above textual evidence is accepted then all but one of the astronomical objects suggested in the literature as the star of Bethlehem can be ruled out. For example, the most popular theory, demonstrated in many planetariums, is that the star of Bethlehem refers to a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC. This planetary conjunction theory dates back to the 8th century astronomer/astrologer Masha'allah 7 and has been widely supported in more recent times 4 , 8 but it does not satisfy the description that the star was a single star which appeared at a specific time, nor of a star which 'stood over' Bethlehem. The next most popular theory is that the star was a nova or a supernova. The first suggestion that the star of Bethlehem was a nova was made by Foucquet in 1729, and possibly earlier by Kepler in 1614 (see also Sachs and Walkerg 9 ) and it has received considerable recent support. 10 A supernova has also been suggested. 11 A nova or supernova satisfies the requirement that the star of Bethlehem was a single star which appeared at a specific time, but cannot account for the star moving through the sky. Similarly, all other suggestions for the star of Bethlehem (e.g. that it was Venus, etc) can be ruled out except one: a comet.

    4. Was the Star of Bethlehem a Comet?

    Comets probably have the greatest dramatic appearance of all astronomical phenomena. They can be extremely bright and easily visible to the naked eye for weeks or even months. Spectacular comets typically appear only a few times each century. They can move slowly or rapidly across the sky against the backdrop of stars, but visible comets usually move through the star background at about 1 or 2 degrees per day relative to the Earth. They can sometimes be seen twice, once on their way in towards perihelion (the point in their orbit which is closest to the sun) and again on their way out. However, from a given point on the Earth's surface, a comet is often only seen once, either on its way in or its way out, because of its orbit relative to 87The Star of Bethlehem the Earth. Since a comet usually peaks in brightness on its way out, about one week after perihelion, most visible comets are seen on their way out from perihelion.

    If the star described in Matthew was a comet, was it seen twice, first in the east on its way in towards perihelion and again in the south on its way out, or was it seen continuously moving from east to south (and then to west) on its way out? Matthew 2:9 states 'the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them [to Bethlehem in the south]'. It was not generally recognised 2000 years ago that a comet seen twice, once on its way in towards perihelion (where it would disappear in the glare of the sun) and again on its way out was one and the same comet. It was normally regarded as two separate comets. Since Matthew 2:9 clearly implies that the star seen in the south was the same star as that originally seen in the east we deduce that the star was continuously visible and suggest that it was a comet on its way out from perihelion travelling east to south (to west). In particular it is suggested that the Magi originally saw the comet in the east in the morning sky (see later). They travelled to Jerusalem, a journey time of 1- 2 months (see section 7), and in this time the comet had moved through about 90', from the east to the south. In one month the star background would move through 30', and in two months through 60*. For the comet to have moved through 90' an additional 60' (in one month) or 30' (in two months) motion is required, which is broadly consistent with the 1 or 2 degrees per day typical motion of a comet. In Jerusalem, Herod's advisers suggested the Magi go to Bethlehem, six miles to the south and a journey time of one or two hours. The Magi set off next morning and saw the comet ahead of them in the south in the morning sky. Hence it appeared that the comet 'went ahead of' the Magi on this last lap of their journey.

    The curious terminology in Matthew 2:9 that the star 'stood over' Bethlehem will now be considered. Phrases such as 'stood over' and 'hung over' appear to be uniquely applied in ancient literature to describe a comet, and I can find no record of such phrases being used to describe any other astronomical object. The historians Dio Cassius and Josephus were broadly contemporary with the author of Matthew's gospel. Dio Cassius (Roman History, 54, 29) describing the comet of 12 BC (Halley's comet) which appeared before the death of Marcus Agrippa writes 'the star called comet stood for several days over the city [Rome]'. Josephus (Jewish War 6,5,3) states 'a star, resembling a sword, stood over the city Jerusalem]', probably referring to the comet of AD 64 mentioned by Tacitus (Annals, 15,47), comets frequently being described as 'swords' in ancient literature because of their upward tails (in a direction away from the sun). Marcellinus describing a comet of AD 390 writes'a sign appeared in the sky hanging like a column and blazing for 30 days'.

    Celestial objects (including comets) appear to move across the night sky because of the rotation of the earth. In addition, comets move against the backdrop of stars. What did Dio Cassius and Josephus mean when they referred to comets 'standing over' Rome and Jerusalem, respectively? At the time of Christ the prevailing theory of comets was due to Aristotle who had proposed that comets were sub-lunar objects located in the upper atmosphere (see, for example, ref. 12 ). This theory was consistent with the Aristotelian model of comets lying below the 'heavenly spheres' containing the Sun, Moon, planets and fixed stars, and presumably it also appeared to be consistent with visual observations of bright comets which often seem to be close to the Earth (many paintings and woodcuts of comets depict them as lying close to the Earth). Hence a comet is probably the only astronomical object to appear to be sufficiently low lying to be capable of satisfying the descriptions in Dio Cassius, Josephus and Matthew of a star standing over a particular town or city for part of the night. In addition, the upward tail of the comet would appear to point the head of the comet towards the city. Hence we interpret Matthew's description of a star ,standing over' the place where Jesus was born as meaning that when the Magi left Herod and headed towards Bethlehem, as he had suggested, they looked up and saw the comet in front of them, with a near vertical tail, the head of the comet appearing to stand over Bethlehem.

    The use of the characteristic term 'stood over' by Dio Cassius and Josephus to describe a comet would seem to leave little doubt that when Matthew uses the term 'stood over' he is also describing a comet. Thus a comet uniquely fits the description in Matthew that the star was new, it travelled slowly through the star field from the east to the south, it went ahead of the Magi, and 'stood over' Bethlehem, the place where the child was.

    The identification of a comet with the star of Bethlehem goes back to Origen in the third century, and this is the earliest known theory for the star. Origen (Contra Celsum 1, 58) stated 'The star that was seen in the East we consider to be a new star ... partaking of the nature of those celestial bodies which appear at times such as comets ... If then at the commencement of new dynasties or on the occasion of other important events there arises a comet. . . why should it be a matter of wonder that at the birth of Him who was to introduce a new doctrine ... a star should have arisen? In about AD 1303, Giotto painted a comet above the head of the infant Jesus in a fresco in the Arena Chapel in Padua, presumably using as a model the AD 1301 appearance of Halley's comet (the European Space Agency mission to Halley's comet in 1985/6 was called 'Giotto' in commemoration of the artist's nativity comet). The possibility that the star of Bethlehem was a comet has also more recently been suggested 3 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 but without the detailed arguments given here and in my previous paper. 2

    If the evidence cited above for identifying the star of Bethlehem with a comet is so strong why has it not been previously considered in the detail given here? The main reason seems to be the widespread belief that a comet was regarded as a sign from heaven of impending calamity and divine displeasure. Hence, it is argued, if the star of Bethlehem was a comet, it could not possibly have been interpreted by the Magi as heralding the birth of the Messiah .4 However, an examination of historical records shows that although for much of history and in many countries comets were associated with death and disaster, around the time of Christ comets were associated with the birth of great kings and with good news. Thus Origen, following his suggestion that the star of Bethlehem was a comet, refers (Contra Celsum 1, 59) to a book 'Treatise on Comets' by Chaeremon the Stoic (which we no longer possess) which lists occasions comets appeared when 'good was to happen'. The Chinese called comets 'broom stars' on account of their tails, and at least two ancient Chinese references make a pun of the word 'broom': a Chinese description of a comet of 5 24 BC saw it as a 'new broom' to sweep away traditions and the old order of things, 17 and Tsochhiu (c. 300 BC) stated'a comet is like a broom, it signals the sweeping away of evil'.

    In the second century AD the Roman historian Justinus quoted from an earlier Roman historian, who in turn quoted from the History of Kings of Timagenes of Alexandria (which we no longer possess), as follows: 'Heavenly phenomena had also predicted the greatness of this man [Mithridates, the famous King of Pontus]. For both in the year in which he was born and in the year in which he began to reign a comet shone through both periods for 70 days in such a way that the whole sky seemed to be ablaze' (Justinus, Pompei Trogi Hist. Phil. Epit. XXXVII, ii, 1-3). This account was dismissed by many historians as legendary (cf. the star of Bethlehem) but Fotheringham 18 identified comets in Chinese records in 134 BC and 120 BC, precisely the already accepted years of the birth and accession to the kingship of Mithridates, and these comets are now accepted by historians as events confirming his chronology. Pliny (Natural History 11, 23) records that Augustus (63 BC to AD 14) dedicated a temple to a comet that appeared during athletic games he sponsored in 44 BC, just after the assassination of Julius Caesar. The common people assumed that the comet was taking the soul of Caesar to the heavens where the gods lived. The emblem of a comet was added to a bust of Caesar that was dedicated in the forum. Augustus then used an emblem of a comet on some of his own coins, presumably as a symbol of his own greatness and possibly as a symbol of his assumed deity. It seems clear therefore that at the time of Christ comets were associated with great kings and with important events.

    The Chinese kept careful astronomical records of visible comets, novae etc, and used different terms to describe them. 19 A tailed comet was called a sui-hsing, meaning a broom star, the 'broom' referring to the tail of the comet (traditionally the Chinese character read as sui has been read as hui, but sui is probably more correct, M. Loewe, private communication). A comet without a tail is called a po-hsing, and a nova is called a k'o-hsing, meaning guest-star. A clear distinction is not always made between novae and comets without a tail. Ho Peng-Yoke 20 lists and translates ancient Chinese records of comets and novae. Those appearing within the period 20 BC to AD 10 are all described as comets and are given in Table 1. These objects are the only recorded astronomical phenomena appearing near the birth of Christ which satisfy the description in Matthew's gospel of a star that moved through the sky and that 'stood over' a place.

    The earliest possible date for the birth of Christ can be deduced from Luke 3:2 3, which states that he was 'about 3 0' when he started his ministry, which commenced with his baptism by John the Baptist. Luke 3:1-2 carefully states that the ministry of John the Baptist started in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. Depending on whether Luke used the Julian calendar or the Roman regnal year calendar, the fifteenth year of Tiberius was Jan. 1-Dec. 31, AD 29 or autumn AD 28-29, respectively. The Lucan term 'about 30' is a broad term covering any actual age ranging from 26 to 34, 21 thus the earliest possible year for the birth of Christ is obtained by subtracting 34 years from AD 28, giving 7 BC. Hence we can rule out as being too early for the star of Bethlehem the comet of 12 BC (Halley's comet) in Table 1, although the 12 BC comet has recently been revived as the star of Bethlehem. 14 , 15 , 16

    The latest possible year for the birth of Christ is given by the date of the death of king Herod the Great, since Matthew 2:1 states that Herod was king when the star was seen by the Magi. The generally accepted date for the death of Herod the Great is the spring of 4 BC 22 although other dates have also been suggested (e.g. 5 BC, 23 1 BC 24 , 25 ,26, 27 and 1 AD 28 ). The evidence that Herod died in 4 BC is strong, and the accounts in Josephus of the reigns of his three sons, Archelaus, Antipas and Philip, all correlate perfectly with a 4 BC date . 21 , 29 josephus (Antiquities 17:167) records that Herod died between an eclipse of the moon (usually taken to be that of 12/13 March 4 BQ and the following Passover (on 11 April 4 BQ. josephus also describes that following the death of Herod his funeral occurred, then a seven-day mourning period, then demonstrations against his son Archelaus and then the Passover. Thus the latest date for the death of Herod is the end of March 4 BC and hence the comet that appeared in April 4 BC is too late to be the star of Bethlehem. In addition, the Chinese records give no details of the 4 BC comet (e.g. its duration) hence it was probably short-lived and insignificant.

    5. The Star of Bethlehem-a Comet in 5 BC

    Having effectively eliminated the comets of 12 BC and 4 BC as possible candidates for the star of Bethlehem, we note from Table 1 that the only possibility is the comet of 5 BC. The description of this in the Chinese Han shu, the official history of the former Han dynasty (206 BC-AD 9), on which Ho Peng-Yoke depends, is as follows:

    'Second year of the Chien-p'ing reign period, second month (5 BC, March 9-April 6), a suibsing appeared at Ch'ien-niu
    for over 70 days.'

    The passage in the Han shu also includes what is termed a traditional comment relating to this 5 BC comet which indicates that this comet was regarded as being of particular significance (see ref. 2 for further details).

    Table 1 Comets and novae appearing from 20 BC to AD 10


    Ho Peng-Yoke 20 Date Description
    catalogue number (Julian calendar)


    61 26 August 12 BC (for po (comet)
    56 days, Halley's comet)

    63 9 March-6 April 5 BC sui (tailed comet)
    (for over 70 days)

    64 April 4 BC po (comet)


    Note: (1) the catalogue of Ho Peng-Yoke20 also has a 10 BC po comet as catalogue number 62. However, C. Cullen (to be published) has shown that there is no record of an appearance of a comet in that year but simply references to the one which had been seen in 12 BC.
    (2) the term sui (tailed comet) has traditionally been read as hui: see text.

    Since the comet was observed for over 70 days it was almost certainly very bright for part of this time, as suggested in various ancient references to the star of Bethlehem. For example, the New Testament Apocryphal book30 the Protoevangelium of St James, possibly written in about AD 150, states that the wise men said 'we saw how an indescribably greater star shone among these stars and dimmed them'. The first reference identifying the 5 BC object with the star of Bethlehem appears to be that of Foucquet in 1729, however he referred to the object as a nova, as did Lundmark 3l and Clark et al. 10 As we have argued earlier, the description in Matthew that the star moved from East to South is inconsistent with a nova. In addition, since the 5 BC object was clearly described in the ancient Chinese records as a sui-hsing, and since the use of the term sui implies that the star had a definite tail, we should accept the Chinese description of this object as a tailed comet (Ho Peng- Yoke, private communication, see also Cullen 32) .

    Would this 5 BC comet observed by the Chinese have been visible to Magi living in Arabia, Mesopotamia or Persia? The Chinese records state that the comet appeared at Ch'ien-niu, and from ancient Chinese star maps Ch'ien-niu is the area of the sky including the constellation Capricornus. In March/April Capricornus rose above the Eastern horizon as seen from Arabia and neighbouring countries and was first visible in the morning twilight. Hence this comet would have been seen by the Magi rising in the East in the morning sky. This is consistent with Matthew 2:2 which states that the Magi first saw 'his star in the East'. (An alternative translation of 'in the East' in Matthew 2:2 is 'at its rising'. 4 If this alternative translation is adopted the 5 BC comet again fits the description, since according to the Chinese records it would be first seen at its rising in the East in the morning sky).

    The Chinese records also describe the 5 BC comet as being visible for over 70 days. The implication is that the comet was continuously visible, rather than being seen twice, once going in towards perihelion and again going out (see Section 4). The visibility for over 70 days is consistent with the probable journey time of the Magi (1-2 months, see later) and the probable time for the comet to move from east to south (also 1-2 months, see Section 4). Thus a consistent picture emerges: the Magi first saw the comet soon after perihelion in the east, in Capricornus, in the morning sky. They travelled to Jerusalem, a journey time of 1-2 months, and saw the comet in the south in the morning sky as they travelled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The comet continued to move to the west and became invisible after 70+ days.

    6. The Three Signs in the Sky

    Why should this particular comet have caused the Magi to make their journey? It is suggested that a combination of three astronomical events was involved: the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in 7 BC, the massing of three planets in 6 BC and finally the appearance of the comet in Capricornus in 5 BC. The eighth century AD astrological world history'On Conjunctions, Religions and Peoples' by Masha'allah was based on an earlier Babylonian theory that important religious and political changes are predicted by conjunctions of the planets Saturn and jupiter. 7 Thus Masha'allah used Iranian astronomical computations to claim that the flood, the birth of Christ and the birth of Muhammad were all predicted by conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter in the appropriate astrological circum- stances. Rosenberg, 33 following the medieval Jewish writer Abarbanal, 34 has explained how in Magian astrology the planet Saturn represented the divine Father and Jupiter was his son. The constellation Pisces was astrologically associated with Israel. Thus it is suggested that the astrological message of the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces in 7 BC was this: a Messiah-king will be born in Israel. The fact that the conjunction happened three times in 7 BC (in May, October and December) probably served to reinforce this message. Thus it is suggested that the 7 BC triple conjunction alerted the Magi to the coming of the Messiah. We know that this 7 BC triple conjunction was important to Babylonian astronomers since a clay tablet, the star almanac of Sippar, has been found about 30 miles north of Babylon which refers in detail to this triple conjunction, and the tablet has been positively dated to 7 BC. 4

    Shortly after the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in 7 BC, Mars joined Jupiter and Saturn in the sky so that in February 6 BC the three planets (still in Pisces) were separated by only about eight degrees. There is a tradition that the massing of these three planets preceded the birth of Christ. In 1465 Jakob von Speyer, the Court Astronomer for Prince Frederic d'Urbino asked Regiomontanus 'Given that the appearance of Christ is regarded as a consequence of the Grand Conjunction of the three superior planets, find the year of his birth', a question that Regiomontanus was unable to answer. 35 Both Jakob von Speyer and Regiomontanus were familiar with ancient Greek, Latin and Persian books on astronomy/ astrology, 35 many of which have been lost, and the tradition that the massing of the three planets preceded the birth of Christ may be very early.

    A similar massing was observed by Kepler in AD 1504 and, unlike Regiomontanus, he calculated that such massings of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars occurred only every 805 years, and suggested that they coincided with great events in history (his assumed dates were Moses 1617 BC, Isaiah 812 BC, Christ 6/7 BC, Charlemagne AD 799 and the Reformation AD 1604).

    For Kepler, the massing of the three planets was astrologically important than the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, tentatively suggested that the supernova of AD 1604, and BC might have resulted from these massings. 36 To the represented the king of war, to the Persians the celestial is suggested that the massing of the three planets in 6 BC triple conjunction in 7 BC confirmed to the Magi that Messiah-king to be born in Israel would be a mighty king. The scene was set: expectations were aroused for a third sign which would indicate birth of the king was imminent.

    7. The Significance of the 5 BC Comet

    In the spring of 5 BC a comet blazed forth in Capricornus. This been rich in significance for the Magi. Not only - associated with great kings (see section 4), but Ptolemy stated that the appearance of a comet in the orient (east) approaching events and in the occident (west) those that slowly. The significance of the Magi seeing 'his star in the east' 2:2) was therefore that it clearly provided the awaited sign that the king was imminent. It may also be relevant to note that the Emperor Augustus had a silver coin issued which bore the BC17 and Manilius extolled the greatness of Capricorn as Augustus' sign (Astronomica 2.507). " - - symbolised kings. The writings of the Old Testament prophet have been known to the Magi, since he wrote while in exile i (Daniel 1:1) and he refers frequently to the Babylonian astrologers 1:19; 2:2; 4:5; 5:7). Daniel had a vision of a horned goat ' - whole earth without touching the ground and which fought overcame a ram (Daniel 8:5-21).' this vision may allude to Capricorn and Aries (the ram), and the goat, which Daniel identified with a mighty king of Greece, to be the powerful king Alexander the Great. It is suggested that the remarkable sequence of the triple conjunction in 7 BC, the massing of the three planets in 6 BC and the comet in Capricornus in 5 BC provided a very clear message to the Magi that a very great king was to be born in Israel.

    The Magi therefore set off and went to Jerusalem to King Herod and asked 'where is the one who has been born king of the Jews' (Matthew 2:2) The legend that the star guided them to Jerusalem is not required (and Matthew neither states nor implies this): it is suggested that the Magi went to Jerusalem because their interpretation of the 7 BC conjunction and the 6 BC planetary massing was that a Messiah-king would be born in Israel and the appearance of the 5 BC comet told them this had happened. The advisers of Herod told them where: in Bethlehem, according to the prophet Micah. Again, they did not need guidance from the star, but were, 'overjoyed' when, on this last lap of their journey, the star 'went before them' in the morning sky and when it 'stood over' Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. Bethlehem was a small town, and a few enquiries may have quickly revealed the location of the child recently visited by the shepherds.

    Montefiore, 13 Finegan 3 and Hughes 37 have previously suggested that the 'star' may have involved both the 7 BC conjunction and the 5 BC or 4 BC comets, with the Magi setting out in 7 BC and arriving in Jerusalem in 5/4 BC. Hughes 4 has rightly criticised this theory (and withdrawn his own earlier theory, Hughes 37 ) as having the 'almost insurmountable difficulty' that the star the Magi saw when they set out, and the star they saw in Jerusalem, should have been one and the same star not a conjunction and a star, since Matthew 2:9 states 'the star, which they saw in the East, went before them' on the final leg of their journey to Bethlehem. We agree: the proposal here is that two events, the conjunction of 7 BC and the planetary massing of 6 BC, alerted the Magi to the coming birth, but they did not set out until the 5 BC comet appeared in the east, indicating that the birth was imminent.

    How long did their journey take? Hughes 4 has noted that Lawrence of Arabia in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom states that in 24 hours a fully loaded camel can cover l00 miles if hard pressed and 50 miles comfortably. The furthest the Magi are likely to have travelled is from Babylon to Jerusalem, a distance of about 550 miles going directly across the Arabian desert and about 900 miles travelling via the Fertile Crescent. Wiseman 38 has shown that as crown-prince, Nebuchadrezzar took 23 days to travel from north of Jerusalem to Babylon in a rapid return to take up the throne in Babylon in 605 BC. Hence allowing one or two months for the journey, including preparation time, seems not unreasonable, so that if the Magi commenced their journey soon after the comet appeared in March/April 5 BC, they would have arrived in Jerusalem in April 4-June 5 BC. As noted in Section 5, this journey time for the Magi is consistent with the probable time for the comet to move from east to south and with the 70+ days visibility of the 5 BC comet noted in the Chinese records.

    The theory proposed here fits well with Herod giving orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem who were two years old and under 'according with the time he had learned from the Magi' (Matthew 2:16). Earlier Herod had asked the Magi 'the exact time the star had appeared' (Matthew 2:7). It is suggested that the Magi spoke with Herod when they arrived in Jerusalem in April/June 5 BC and recounted not only the appearance of the comet about one month previously but also described the significance of the planetary massing in 6 BC and the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in May, October and December 7 BC. Herod, leaving nothing to chance, decided to kill all boys born since the first stage of the triple conjunction in May 7 BC, two years previously.

    The 5 BC date for the star of Bethlehem also fits well with the textual evidence for the length of stay of Jesus and his family in Egypt. According to Matthew 2:13-15, after the Magi had left Bethlehem, Joseph was warned that Herod planned to kill Jesus, so the family left for Egypt (a classic refuge for those trying to flee the tyranny of Palestine) and returned after Herod died. Both Origen and Eusebius state that Jesus and his family were in Egypt for two years, and they returned in the first year of the reign of Archelaus. Archelaus, one of Herod's sons, started his reign when Herod died. Thus if Herod died at the end of March, 4 BC, the first year of the reign of Archelaus was from April 4 BC to April 3 BC. Jesus and his family probably left for Egypt shortly after the Magi left Bethlehem, in about April- June 5 BC. If they stayed in Egypt a reasonable time after the death of Herod, to be absolutely sure of the news, they could have returned to Israel in, say, March 3 BC, when travelling conditions would be good, in the first year of Archelaus and having spent about two years in Egypt. Thus the 5 BC comet is consistent chronologically with both Herod's massacre of the infants and the two year stay in Egypt.

    8. The Problem of the Census

    According to Luke 2:1-5, a census was taken by Emperor Caesar Augustus around the time of the birth of Christ, and Joseph travelled with Mary from Nazareth to his home town of Bethlehem in order to register. This census is one of the thorny problems of the New Testament about which much has been written. There are three well-documented censuses conducted by Augustus: in 28 BC, 8 BC and AD 14, but these were apparently only for Roman citizens. In addition, there are various records of provincial censuses under Augustus for non-citizens for purposes of taxation, for example in AD 6, a decade after the death of Herod the Great, J osephus refers to a census in Judea administered by Quirinius the governor of Syria, and Luke also refers to this census (Acts 5:37). However, there is no record of a census for taxation purposes in Judea around the time of the birth of Christ, hence the problem in interpreting Luke 2:1-5.

    The problem can be resolved if the census was not for taxation purposes but was instead a census of allegiance to Caesar Augustus (some translations of Luke 2:1-5 refer to taxation, but this is not implied in the Greek text). The fifth century historian Orosius (Adv. Pag. VI.22.7, VII.2.16) states '[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. . . . In this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and through the participation in the census, were made part of one society'. Josephus (Ant. XVII, ii, 4) appears to refer to the same event: 'when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their goodwill to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men [the Pharisees] did not swear, being above six thousand.' From the context of these words in Josephus, this census of allegiance to Caesar Augustus occurred about one year before the death of Herod the Great.

    There is one further problem with this census. Luke 2:2 is usually translated 'This census was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria', but Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until AD 6. However, the Greek sentence construction of Luke 2:2 is unusual and an alternative translation is l , 39 : 'This census took place before the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria'. As noted above, from Josephus this latter census can be dated to AD 6, and Luke (Acts 5:37) was well aware of it. Thus the earlier census reference by Luke in Luke 2:1-5 provides a chronological clue to the birth of Christ, and from the context in Josephus (Ant. XVII, ii, 4) this census of allegiance occurred about 1 year before the death of Herod the Great, which is consistent with our placing the birth of Christ in the spring of 5 BC.

    9. A New Chronology for the Life of Christ

    What is the earliest date for the birth of Jesus? It would seem that the Magi expected Jesus to be born shortly after the time the 5 BC comet appeared since a comet appearing in the east signified an imminent event, and when they arrived in Jerusalem they asked Herod 'Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?' (Matthew 2:2). Hence it would seem that the earliest possible date for the birth of Jesus is when the comet first appeared, and the earliest date for this according to the Chinese records is 9 March 5 BC. This is consistent with Luke 2:8 which states that at the time of the birth of Jesus 'there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flock by night'. Bethlehem is cold and very wet during December, January and February and flocks of sheep were not normally kept in the fields in these months (see, for example, Hughes 4 ). Sheep were usually put out to grass between March and November, the shepherds being with the flocks at night particularly during the spring lambing season (March-April).

    An approximate latest date for the birth of Jesus can be deduced as follows. According to Luke 2:22, after the birth of Jesus and following a time of purification, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem. Lev. 12:2-4 specifies that the time of purification for the mother of a male child is 40 days, after which she can come to the temple. Assuming one day for travel from Bethlehem to Jerusalem (a distance of 6 miles), Jesus would have been born not less than six weeks before the visit of the Magi (since Jesus and his family left for Egypt shortly after the visit of the Magi the most probable sequence of events in the Matthew-Luke birth narratives is birth, visitation of the shepherds, presentation at the temple in Jerusalem, return to Bethlehem, visit of the Magi). There was no point in Joseph and Mary staying in Bethlehem after the purification and visit to the temple since they had originally only gone to Bethlehem for the census. Hence it is reasonable to assume the Magi visited Jesus very shortly after his return from the temple to Bethlehem. This is consistent with the comet being visible for 70 days and the one to two month journey time of the Magi.

    The Chinese records state that the comet first appeared sometime in the period 9 March to 6 April 5 BC and lasted over 70 days. Thus the latest date for the Magi to have seen the 'star' at Bethlehem was 6 April plus 70 days, i.e. 15 June, and the latest date for the birth of Jesus is this date minus six weeks, i.e. 4 May. If this evidence is accepted, Jesus was born sometime in the period 9 March-4 May, 5 BC, which is consistent with the Lucan shepherd reference. It is worth noting that many theologians (e.g. ref. 1) claim that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are inconsistent. This is incorrect. The birth narratives are complementary and easily reconcilable.

    Table 2 Chronology of the Life of Jesus


    Date in Julian Calendar Event


    9 March-4 May, 5 BC Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:1-7
    (13-27 April, 5 BC)

    9 March-4 May, 5 BC Visit of the Shepherds Luke 2:8-20

    (13-27 April, 5 BC) Circumcision on the eighth day (counting inclusively). Luke 2:21.

    16 March-l I May, 5 BC Presentation of Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem after 40 days from birth. Luke 2:22-24.

    (20 April-4 May, 5 BC) Visit of the Magi. Matthew 2:2-12.
    924 May-8 June, 5 BC)

    late April/mid June, 5 BC Flight to Egypt from Bethlehem. Matthew 2:13-15.
    (late May/mid June, 5 BC)

    ~ end March, 4 BC Death of Herod. Matthew 2:20-23.

    ? March, 3 BC Return from Egypt to Nazareth. Matthew 2:20-2

    ? Autumn AD 29 Baptism of Jesus when he was 33.

    Friday, 3 April, AD 33 Crucifixion on 14 Nisan when Jesus was near his 37th birthday. All four gospels.


    Note: The dates given in brackets are narrower date ranges based on Jesus being born around Passover time (see text).

    The most likely date for the Baptism of Jesus is autumn AD 29 . 3, 21 If Jesus was born in the Spring of 5 BC then he would have been 33 when he commenced his ministry. This is consistent with Luke 3:23 that he was 'about thirty' at this time. (As noted above, the Greek translated 'about thirty' means any age between 26 and 34). If the crucifixion was on 3 April AD33, 27 , 29 , 40 , 41 then Jesus was around his 37th birthday when he died. We have deduced that Jesus was born in the spring of 5 BC. We note that in 5 BC the first day of the feast of Passover (Nisan 15 in the Jewish calendar) fell on 20 April and we tentatively give several reasons which suggest that Jesus may have been born around Passover time. At Passover time all adult males were required to come to Jerusalem, hence Jerusalem and its neighbourhood were extremely crowded and nearby Bethlehem would be very crowded too. Censuses were not held on a particular day but were spread over a period of time and it is suggested that Joseph chose to visit Bethlehem for the census at the same time as Passover to save an extra journey. Thus the guest-room (kataluma, mistakenly translated 'inn' in some translations) of the house was full (Luke 2:7) because it was the time of a feast 42 in particular the feast of Passover (see also Pratt, 28 " who dates the Nativity to Passover, 1 BC). Josephus (Jewish War, 1, 229 and 6, 270) states that pilgrims came up to Jerusalem about a week before the Passover to undergo the appropriate purificatory rites, and the feast itself lasted for one week. Thus it is tentatively suggested that the birth of Jesus may have occurred in the week before or after Passover in 5 BC, i.e. in the period 13-27 April, 5 BC.

    Birth at Passover time is consistent with Jewish expectations for the birth of the Messiah. For example, the Jewish scholar Abarbanal,34writing in 1497 AD and still expecting the Messiah, states that the messianic redemption will come in the month Nisan since the 'cup of Elijah' at the Passover meal preserves the symbolism that the new redemption will come during the same season as the Exodus from Egypt. A further clue may be provided by the words of John the Baptist near the time of the baptism of Christ. John twice greets Jesus with the words 'The Lamb of God' (John 1: 29 and 36) and many commentators have discussed the background of this strange phraseology. If Jesus was born at Passover time, particularly if he were born on 10 Nisan (sunset Sunday 14 April to sunset Monday 15 April in 5 BC) when the Passover lambs were chosen, without spot or blemish, or on Nisan 14, when the lambs were sacrificed, John would have a clear reason to call him the Lamb of God. Some key dates and date ranges in the chronology of the Life of Jesus are listed in Table 2.

    10. The Date of Christmas

    The traditional Western date of Christmas, December 25, first occurs in the Roman calendar Chronographus Anni CCCLIXII (Chronographer of the Year 354). In the calendar the sequence of festivals in the church year begins with the festival of the birth of Christ on 25 December. The original version of this calendar may date back to AD 336, hence it is not particularly early.3 The pagan feast of the sol invictus (the invincible sun) was observed on 25 December since it was the date accepted at the time for the winter solstice. The Christian festival of Christmas essentially replaced this pagan festival. The traditional eastern date of the birth of Christ is January 6. Epiphanius (Panarion haer. 51, 22, 9-11) states that this was the date of the pagan festival of Kore which the Christian festival then replaced.

    However the actual birth of Christ was unlikely to have been in winter if we accept Luke 2:8 'there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flock at night'. We very tentatively suggest how 25 December and 6 January might have been chosen for the birth of Christ. According to the present paper, Christ was born in the Spring. We suggest that this birth date may have been confused with the date of the conception (and Epiphanius comments on such a confusion in the early church). Adding nine months for the pregnancy leads to a date range close to the existing pagan festivals of Kore and the sol invictus which were then taken to be Christmas.

    11. Summary and Conclusions There are four key questions arising from the account in Matthew's gospel, and other ancient literature, of the star of Bethlehem: (i) who were the Magi; (ii) is there a known astronomical phenomenon which fits the account; (iii) what induced the Magi to embark on their journey; (iv) can astronomy be used to solve the long-standing problem of the date of the birth of Christ. This paper attempts to answer these questions.

    The Magi are well known in classical literature as a religious group who were skilled in the observation and 'interpretation' of the stars. At the time of Christ they lived mainly in Persia, Mesopotamia and Arabia (now Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, respectively) and they are known to have visited kings in other countries. It is therefore consistent with our knowledge of the Magi that an astronomical sign could have led them to visit a new king.

    There are three main characteristics of the star of Bethlehem recorded in Matthew: it was a star which had newly appeared, it travelled slowly through the sky against the star background, and it stood over Bethlehem. It is suggested in this paper that one, and only one, astronomical object satisfies this description: a comet. It is proposed that the Magi originally saw this comet in the east in the morning sky. They travelled to Jerusalem, journey time of 1-2 months, and in this time the comet had moved to the south in the morning sky, hence it appeared ahead of them as they travelled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem on the last lap of their journey. The comet appeared to stand over Bethlehem with a near vertical tail. It is shown that the description 'stand over' is uniquely applied in ancient literature to refer to a comet.

    From ancient Chinese astronomical records three comets are possible candidates for the star of Bethlehem, those of 12 BC, 5 BC and 4 BC. It is shown from historical and biblical evidence that the comets of 12 BC and of 4 BC were too early and too late, respectively, to be the star of Bethlehem. Hence the comet of 5 BC may uniquely be identified as the star of Bethlehem. The Chinese description of this comet, particularly its appearance in the east and its visibility for over 70 days, is consistent with the description in Matthew.

    It is suggested that a combination of three unusual and significant astronomical events caused the Magi to set off on their journey. First there was a triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation Pisces in 7 BC. Such an event occurs only every goo years. The probable astrological significance of this event to the Magi was that a divine king would be born in Israel. Second, in 6 BC there was a massing of the three planets Mars, Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces. Such a massing only occurs every 800 years (and very much more infrequently in Pisces) and it would have confirmed to the Magi that the king to be born in Israel would be a mighty king. Third, a comet appeared in 5 BC in the east in the constellation Capricornus. In the astrology of the times a comet in the east signified a rapidly approaching event. The comet was therefore the third and final sign which caused the Magi to set off on their journey. It is shown that the probable significance of the comet in Capricornus to the Magi was also that a very great king was about to be born.

    Further analysis suggests that the birth of Christ was in the Spring, in the period 9 March-4 May, 5 BC. Tentatively the period around Passover time is suggested (13-27 April, 5 BC). This date is consistent with the available evidence including a reference in Luke to there being shepherds out in the fields at night. Although today Christmas is celebrated on December 25 in the west and on January 8 in the east, we suggest that the evidence of astronomy, the bible and other ancient literature points to the Spring of 5 BC as being the time of the first Christmas.

    Acknowledgements

    The author is grateful to W. G. Waddington for illuminating discussions and to D. Alexander, A. Bole, 0. Edwards, Ho Peng-Yoke, D. Hughes, M. Loewe, A. Millard, C. Russell, J. Shanklin, W. G. Waddington, B. Winter and the referee for very helpful comments.


    Colin Humphreys is the Goldsmiths' Professor of Materials Science and Head of the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, University of Cambridge.

    References

    1 Brown, R. E., 1977, The Birth of the Messiah, Chapman, London.

    2 Humphreys, C. J., 1991, Q. Jl R astr. Soci., 32, 389-407, and Tyndale Bulletin, 1992, 43.1, 31-56.

    3 Finegan, J., 1964, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    4 Hughes, D., 1979, The Star of Bethlehem Mystery, Dent, London.

    5 Wenham, J., 1991, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, Hodder and Stoughton, 242-3.

    6 Clarke, W. K. L., 1937, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. Macmillan, London & New York.

    7 Kennedy, E. S. and Pingree, D., 1971, The Astrological History of Musha'allah, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    8 Ferrari-D'Occhiepo, K., 1989, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to lack Finegan, eds Vardaman, J. and Yamauchi, E. M., Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 41-53.

    9 Sachs, A. J. and Walker, C. B. F., 1984, Iraq, 46, 43-45.

    10 Clark, D. H., Parkinson, J. H. and Stephenson F. R., 1977, Q. J1 R ast. Soc., 18, 443-449.

    11 Moorhouse, A. J., 1978, 11 Roy Astron. Soc. Can., 72, 65-68.

    12 Bailey, M. E., Clube, S. V. M. and Napier, W. M., 1990, The Origin of Comets, Pergamon, Oxford.

    13 Montefiore, H. W., 1960, Novum Testamentum, 4,139-160.

    14 Kokkinos, N., 1989, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan eds Vardaman, J. and Yamauchi, E. M., Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 133-163.

    15 Vardaman, J., 1989, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to lack Finegan, eds Vardaman, J. and Yamauchi, E. M., Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 55-82.

    16 Reznikov, A. 1., 1986, Recherches d'astronomie historique, 18, 65-80.

    17 Davidson, N., 1985, Astronomy and the Imagination, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London & New York.

    18 Fotheringham, J. K., 1919, Mon. Not. Boy. Astr. Soc., 79,162-167.

    19 Loewe, M., 1980, Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, 52, 1-23.

    20 Ho Peng-Yoke, 1962, Vistas Astr., 5, 127-225.

    21 Maier, P. L., 1989, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to lack Finegan ads Vardaman, J. and Yamauchi, E. M., Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 113-130.

    22 Schfirer, E., Vermes, G. and Millar, 1973, The History of The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Clark, Edinburgh.

    23 Barnes, T. D., 1968, J. Theological Studies, 19, 204-209.

    24 Filmer, W. E., 1966, J. Theological Studies, 17, 283-298.

    25 Martin, E. L., 1980, The Birth of Christ Recalculated, Foundation for Biblical Research, Pasadena.

    26 Edwards, 0., 1982, Palestine Exp. Quar., 114, 29-42.

    27 Edwards, 0., 1986, The Time of Christ, Floris, Edinburgh.

    28 Pratt, J. P., 1990, The Planetarium, 19, 8-13.

    29 Hoehner, H. W., 1989, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ads Vardaman, J. and Yamauchi, E. M., Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 101-111.

    30 James, M., 1924, The Apocryphal New Testament, Clarendon, Oxford.

    31 Lundmark, K., 1953, Actes du VlIe Congr6s International d'Histoire des Sciences, Jerusalem, 436-439.

    32 Cullen, C., 1979, Q. Jl. R astr. Soc., 20,153-159.

    33 Rosenberg, R. A., 1972, Biblica, 53,105-109.

    34 Abarbanal, I., 1497, The Wells of Salvation.

    35 Zinner, E., 1990, Regiomontanus: His Life and Work tr. E. Brown, Elsevier, London.

    36 Kepler, J., 1614, De Vero Anno.

    37 Hughes, D., 1976, Nature, 264, 513-517.

    38 Wiseman, D. J., 1956, Chronical of Chaldean Kings, British Museum, 26-27.

    39 Bruce, F. F., 1969, New Testament History, Nelson, London.

    40 Humphreys, C. J. and Waddington, W. G., 1983, Nature, 306, 743-746.

    41 Humphreys, C. J. and Waddington, W. G., 1989, in Chronos, Kairos, Christas: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to lack Finegan eds Vardaman, J. and Yamauchi, E. M., Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 165-181.

    42 MacKinlay, G. 1897, The Magi, How they Recognised Christ's Star, Hodder and Stoughton, London.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit