Ancient Aliens? My Presentation

Previously I had blogged about various evidences provided for ancient aliens, such as the Nazca Lines, the Baghdad battery, the Piri Re'is map, and the pyramids. I also gave a summary about the methodology of ancient astronaut proponents. But all this was to give some flavor of my presentation.

Quite fortunately, the video of my talk that I gave for the SSA at OSU is already up. You can watch it now.



UPDATE: Had trouble using the BSG opening bit, so here is the video re-edited to avoid that.


And yes, that picture with Jill Tarter did include me. I had a great time working at the SETI Institute back in the day. Also, since she has retired, Gerry Harp is now the head of the institute's research, and he was my adviser when I worked with him as an REU student.

Remember, the SETI Institute is funded solely by private donations. Consider supporting their work. They are doing the archaeology of the future!

So, what are your thoughts?

The Star and Zeitgeist

While I have in prior writings and posts attacked naturalistic theories to explain the Star of Bethlehem as a historical, natural event, I also have encountered other approaches that have their own popularity. In a recent email, I was directed to the coverage of the Star in the Internet-distributed "documentary" Zeitgeist, which is filled with layers of conspiracy. The first third is an argument that Jesus didn't exist, and all of Christianity (and other religions?) is based on astrology or "astrotheology." This is largely the product of the self-published author D. M. Murdock, a.k.a. Acharya S.

What is the basic idea? At about the time of the winter solstice, the three stars of Orion's belt point at the rising sun, pointing through Sirius. This alignment takes place then at about Dec 25. There are also connections between Sirius' heliacal rising (first rising at sunrise in a year) and the summer solstice alleged  Moreover, this was supposed to be celebrated and connected in ancient Egypt, thus making the Christians copy-cats. Thus the Star is fiction and based on Egyptian mythology, itself based on astronomy. Those details are best laid out by Acharya here.

Now, I am not the first to look critically at her claims concerning the Nativity of Jesus, and one place to look at a good examination is done by Richard Carrier here (and update here). Not only are there significant factual errors and unjustified assumptions, but there are good, scholarly-defended results that indicate a lack of historicity for these things (which I hope to detail in my future book on the subject). In particular, the stories of Daniel help explain a lot of the details of Jesus' birth story in Matthew, along with the Moses typology.

However, I haven't found so much detailing the problems with the Star story from Zeitgeist (and if someone finds some links, please share), so I will repost the message I sent back to an inquisitor (name redacted and the email improved for grammar and spelling.)

Hello XXX, 

Thank you for the email and the links. I am familiar with the work of the author you have linked and her interpretation of the Star. However, I think you should be cautious in using her as an authority on this. 

Consider her use of sources. Most all her secondary scholarship is at least a century old, a time when quality was much lower in scholarship. It's also a problem because her central point about the stars of Orion's belt called the Three kings by Egyptians has no support in the primary literature--actual ancient texts. It's also beside the point because Christians didn't refer to the Magi as kings until much later; same with their number three. That means the original story had nothing to do with three kings, thus unrelated to an alleged Egyptian myth. 

There are other details that go against the story in Matthew. While the Magi follow the Star, the belt of Orion leads Sirius. And while Sirius is a star as was Matthew's Star, the Magi are not stars. Why these differences if the Christians were following Egyptian precedent? 

There are also issues with the astronomy. The heliacal rising of Sirius is nowhere near the summer solstice, and the Egyptians cared rather little about solstices. Their agriculture didn't depend on the sun's position as other cultures but on the seasonal flooding of the Nile. (For example, the Maya didn't have seasons so they don't align their calendar with leap years as we do.) The claim about where the stars of Orion and Sirius point on the winter solstice is wrong. The belt has set by sunrise, and it's even worse with precession. 

Lastly, the connection to December 25 is a false lead because, again, the Christians didn't think Jesus was born on that day until centuries later and usually figured different days; Clement of Alexandria gives several guesses, and none are in December, let alone the solstice.
Thus, all the historical and mythological connections are not valid, the astronomy is wrong, and the match between the alleged myth and the Gospel story is poor. That's a big overall negative assessment. 

The much more popular account given by biblical scholars is citing Jewish literature which definitely influenced early Christianity, namely the Star Prophecy of Numbers 24:17. It was used by numerous Jews, including Josephus, rabbis in the Talmud, and the Qumran sect. This is the starting point I have been using in my research about the story, and I suggest the same for you own investigations. On the Nativity stories, the best book is still Raymond Brown's "Birth of the Messiah". I hope to have a future book to supplement Brown's work, but his book is magisterial. 

I hope this helps you. In the mean time, I strongly recommend you be careful about your authorities. See what their sources are, if they cite primary literature rather than old, secondary literature, and if their work has had peer review. It's the only way to have some confidence in the facts presented; otherwise, your have to check everything yourself, thus making the book a pointless read since it didn't inform you but for your own research. Save yourself the time and headache. 

Thanks again for your interest.

In summary, the astronomy is wrong, the astrology is wrong, the fit to Matthew's account is weak, and there are much better explanations. Obviously we have enough reason to be skeptical of the Zeitgeist version of the Star of Bethlehem, and it gives us reason to be skeptical of a lot more as well.

But does Numbers 24:17 explain the Star completely? I will have to say more on that later.

Edit: Apparently Acharya's first name is not "Dorothy", so I have adjusted the text above to reflect this.

Posting at Debunking Christianity

Recently I have been in contact with one of the contributors at the blog Debunking Christianity run by former evangelical, William Lane Craig-trained John Loftus (which I guess makes him the Batman of atheism), and it looks like I will have the opportunity to do a bit of a guest post concerning the Star of Bethlehem. It's good to know people in cyber-places. Check out there in the next couple of days; this post will be updated with a link when it is up.

Update: the post is up now.

Update 2: My post has been located at the new Skeptics Blog site.

Recent Publications

It's been some busy times, and now they have paid off. In this last week I have had two articles published, so a small synopsis is given here.

The first article concerns the Star of Bethlehem and its history of interpretation. I focus on scientific versions of the object, but there is plenty of other points as well. Unlike other articles, this one does not propose a theory or say which ones are best. I will save that for some other time. The article itself is published by Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion, and the issue my article is in is up for free until the end of the year! Give it a read either online or download the PDF (link is to the abstract).

The other article is based on my master's/candidacy paper with my adviser. It concerns the teaching modality of project-based learning (PBL), a subset of inquiry-based instruction; this is a general review of the subject, including its characteristics, history, and effectiveness. It also discusses the best ways to implement PBL, what difficulties it has, and how to test and see the effectiveness of a curriculum. This went through a lot of revision, so its content should be well-vetted and useful. The comparison between PBL and other teaching methods, such as traditional lecture-based instruction and some of the more innovative methods from the mid-late 20th century, is unique and ought to be helpful. Like the Zygon article above, this one is online for free, but it should be up there indefinitely. It's from the journal REAL: Research in Education, Assessment, and Learning, and it is focused on physics education research, though it is more expansive than that.

All in all, a good week last week getting things through the peer review process. Hope to have a several more things published this year, so stay tuned.

No Star of Bethlehem--Thus Spake Zarathustra

In a previous post, I began a critique of one recent attempt to explain the Star of Bethlehem as a natural phenomenon, namely a comet. There I showed that in the land in which the Magi were likely to have emerged from, comets, like in most all other cultures, are considered evil omens.

However, one should ask what we know about the Magi and what we know about their interests in astrology. After all, if we are trying to figure out what would have been interesting in the skies to these eastern sages, we need to know what they thought of events in the heavens.

Firstly, the term magos in the Roman world would have meant something other than the peoples of Persia, and it was often used for astrologers in general or various diviners or magicians. In fact, our term 'magic' is derivative of the Greco-Roman term. Also, Christian figures such as Justin Martyr stated that the Magi were from Arabia. Now, this may have been because of his understanding of Isaiah 60, where gifts brought to the Jewish king by various members of regions close to the Holy Land are mentioned, along with a great light. However, Matthew seems to imply that the Magi are in fact from the Parthian Empire. Firstly, the term magos appears in only one book in the Greek Old Testament, in the Book of Daniel. Thus, a reader living in an environment that was dedicated to the holiness and importance of the OT would place the Greek term in the context of eastern soothsayers from the Babylonian Empire. Furthermore, Matthew calls them magi "from the East", which would point in the direction of Babylonia/Persia far more than to Arabia, and this would also distinguish the Magi from the hucksters of the time in Imperial Rome. Thus, it

seems best to think of these Magi as the ones mentioned from the East, especially as mentioned by figures such as Herodotus and Strabo.

Now, the magi were the priests of the Zoroastrian faith, one that is considered even more ancient than that of the Hebrews (Mary Boyce placed the prophet Zoroaster in about 1200 BCE). Also, the Zoroastrians had a cosmic dualistic theology, that there were two

principle gods, Ahura Mazda (the good), and Ahriman (the evil). These are the Avestan names of the deities, and later languages would show modification in the names (compar YHWH to Jehovah). Also, most all our texts for the faith come in later centuries and didn't reach the form we know them until the Sassanian period. Nonetheless, we can learn a fair bit about their beliefs from their texts, along with comparing classical sources, though we must be cautious concerning their quality.

Now, what do we know about Zoroastrian astrological beliefs? (My discussion here is primarily based on that of Gerard Mussies, “Some Astrological Presuppositions of Matthew 2: Oriental, Classical and Rabbinical Parallels” in van der Horst, Aspects of Religious Contact and Conflict in the Ancient World, pp. 25-44.)

From what we can gather, firstly, Greek astrological methods did not become well-known in Persia until the Sassanian period, especially under leaders such as Shapur I who instituted programs to gather and translate Greek and Indian scientific works, namely in areas such as astronomy and astrology. That this translation effort in Pahlavi does not come to be until this time suggests a lack of interest in the sort of astrology one finds in the works of Ptolemy. This of course does much to harm the theories of researchers such as Michael Molnar who depend on their interpretation of horoscopes using Greek treatises. But what is more damning is what Zoroastrians had to say about the main edifice of astrology: the planets.

According to the preserved texts, in the beginning Ahura Mazda had the stars, Sun, and Moon as stationary objects giving off their light, a sign of their purity. Also important where the constellations, especially those of the zodiac. However, Ahriman corrupted the heavens as much as he could, and caused some of the bodies in the sky to move and attack the other uncorrupted bodies. Thus the planets, the wandering stars, were evil, the product of the Evil One. Along with the the five classical planets were the eclipsed Sun and Moon (the normal Sun and Moon were still good), the comet Mush Parig, and the lunar nodes called Goshihr. The key thing is that changing bodies were the corrupted, which those that were regular such as the stars and the normal course of the Sun and Moon were pure and good.

Thus we see in the holy texts a very negative view of the planets. In other texts, we find Zoroaster himself debating with Babylonian scholars about the meaning of heavenly bodies, which implies the debate going on in Sassanid Persia rather than an historical recollection--this of it as a sort of WWJD story, but instead WWZD. We also get a sense for how late this debate is because the most ancient texts, the Avesta, speaks only of major, bright stars such as Sirius, along with the Sun and Moon. The planets are not mentioned until this derivative literature is produced which is from the 3rd century CE or later. There is also no direct evidence of astrological knowledge in earlier periods, and indirect evidence is not persuasive.

What this means is that the sort of object that Matthew describes, one that moves and stops, even a comet or planet, would be considered evil. It is also likely that a supernova would be ominous because of its unpredictability. The only sort of astrology practiced by the Zoroastrian priesthood was most primitive, even when compared to what the Babylonians had done in the Enuma Anu Enlil. Thus, it would be inappropriate to call the Magi 'astrologers' as they would not have cast horoscopes or done judicial astrology. In other words, Matthew's Magi were not the right people to be interpreting the heavens.

This is a major wrench in the works for all attempts to identify the Star because any configuration of planets would be baleful to the magi, and similarly for comets or most anything else considered to be the Star of Bethlehem. Later Zoroastrians would adopt Greco-Indian astrology and make their own innovations, such as the great conjunction system of world history, but all this is centuries too late. This also goes against the historicity of Matthew's tale since his choice of astrologically-minded people is incorrect. However, since it is more likely Matthew was trying to evoke the magi of Daniel, it is likely why he chose the term; his purpose is literary, not historical, as future posts will demonstrate.

The SoB as a Comet?

More than a year ago I came across the webpage of a researcher on the Star of Bethlehem (SoB), James Sentell. I had written a bit in response to him, and we had some email exchanges. In particular I found fault in his efforts to explain the language of Matthew using the work of a Jesuit astronomer, Gustav Teres. This source was a problem because he said things that were just linguistically absurd, such as the verb proago in Matt 2:9 was in the aorist imperfect tense, a conflation to two different past tenses that is logically impossible. After some back and forth, he had shut down his website because he was helping in create a planetarium show in Europe and had signed off the rights to his work. By the looks of it he had been researching the subject for some time and had been in contact with various researchers concerning the Star.

Recently it appears that Mr. Sentell has started a new website on the subject (he also on another page discusses the Red Sirius mystery), and he emailed me for two things. One was permission to quote a couple of paragraphs from my S&T article (okay by me) and if I wanted to make any critical remarks in some sort of open forum. I wish to make my comments here.

While there are plenty of things I will want to discuss, for this post I will stick to one point, and in a later post will examine other aspects of the issue and why I disagree with Mr. Sentell's conclusions. I think it is worth-while to do this back-and-forth with this particular person because he has shown to be both welcoming of criticism and responsive. For example, though he still sights Teres in his bibliography, he does not rely on his linguistic "arguments". As such, I know I am talking to a person, not a wall or dogma. Some of his rhetoric may be a bit cutting, but this is the Internet; without drama, all we would have is E-bay and porn.

In this post, I want to talk about the idea that the Star of Bethlehem could have been a comet. There are probably three major contenders for the Star that use physical or astronomical theories: the planetary conjunction/alignment hypothesis; the nova/supernova hypothesis, and the comet hypothesis. There are various versions of each of these ideas. There are several conjunctions that some scholar has pointed to (Saturn-Jupiter in 7 BCE; Jupiter-Venus in 3/2 BCE; etc.), and novae have been speculated to have been in both this galaxy and the next major one. There are also multiple comets that researchers have considered: Halley's in 12 BCE, and two different ones recorded by the Chinese in 5 and 4 BCE.

Of the three major hypotheses, the comet has probably been the least popular because there are many, many examples of where comets are interpreted by ancient peoples as evil omens. Such a notion is not foreign even in the modern era. This is becomes difficult why it would make eastern sages come to worship a foreign king all due to an object that gave them "great joy" (Matt 2:10). All those that consider the comet hypothesis know this, but they speculate that perhaps the eastern Magi would have interpreted things differently in this one case.

I have seen two ways this benevolent interpreted has been argued, and one I have only seen with Mr. Sentell. His is this: the records of comets as evil come primarily from Greco-Roman sources, but the Magi were Zoroastrians. In their theology, light was good, darkness evil, so a shining object in the sky would have been a positive sign. What are his sources for this argument that Zoroastrians would have seen comets as positive signs? Nothing. He cited neither primary nor secondary sources to back up his claim, and not a single piece of scholarship is noted to support him. It is a speculation based on his understanding of the philosophy of Zoroastrian priesthood, a religion that he is cannot be said to have expert knowledge--he's no Mary Boyce.

Since Sentell provides no evidence for the proposition it is extremely vulnerable to contrary evidence. Already it is problematic that virtually all ancient sources take a negative view that comets are evil signs (see Carl Sagan, Comet, pp. 15-25). Sagan provides source not just from the West, but also from China and the Americas, so this view is hardly restricted to Greeks and Romans. We may also add to this Jewish literature which also had comets as omens (Josephus, Jewish War 6.288-91, 314-5; Sibylline Oracles 3.796-800). Moreover, much of the astrological traditions of the west were absorbed from eastern astronomers and astrologers--the Babylonians. That the Greeks would have had such a negative view of comets while the Chaldaeans thought differently would be most odd. Moreover, Babylonian texts such as the Enuma Anu Enlil and MUL.APIN and reports to Middle Eastern kings depict comets as evil signs. Later traditions in the same part of the world are also negative; in Islam, a comet was called al-Kaid, which means "the one that bring rancor". Again, such a context, even without any direct evidence, would make Sentell's assumptions worthless. His claim becomes extraordinarily, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.

But in fact there is Zoroastrian evidence, and it doesn't bode well for Sentell. Bundahishn 5 A.6-7 and Yasnas 16.8; 68.8 show the same fear of comets as these other cultures had done. In the first work, a comet named Mush Parig brings much fear and destruction; the Yasnas (or Yashnas) include prayers to counteract the evils of comets. As such, the very same concept of what comets signify is found in this most important culture. (See also Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, "An Account of Comets as given by Mahomedan Historians and as contained in the books of the Pishinigan or the Ancient Persians referred to by Abul Fazl", Asiatic Papers 2 (1917): 101f.; Encyclopedia Iranica 2.867)

Even though we had every epistemic right to discount Sentell's speculation without further analysis, we see that he is completely falsified, and thus his stance that the comet would have been a good sign is unjustified. Without a justification, that means all the other speculations concerning the comet, as well as his ephemeris for the comet of 5 BCE, fail to support his case that there was a Star of Bethlehem. This does not disprove the other theories for the Star, but there is a similar flaw: what made the Magi think that nova or conjunction was a good sign and meant "king of the Jews"?

However, as I mentioned, there is another method of justifying that comets could be seen as positive signs. This attempt does rely on ancient records, so it is this superior attempt that should be considered (Sentell cites Humphreys for justifying a comet as the Star, but for some reason does not give his evidence or argument). In the whole of the ancient Mediterranean, there are two examples of comets that were given a positive interpretation: the comet of 44 BCE at the funeral games of Julius Caesar, and the comet(s) of Mithridates VI Eupator. I will deal with these cases in detail in my future book on the subject, but for now a few things should be said here.

First, that we have a mere two examples that are positive out of the dozens of cases only demonstrates how stacked the deck is against the proposition--we can be very sure that a comet would be considered evil. It would be a logical fallacy to say that because it was possible to interpret a comet as auspicious, then a certain comet was probably so interpreted. Moreover, there are political forces at work that need to be considered. For example, the comet of 44 BCE was actually interpreted differently by the parties in Rome. Those sided with Octavian (later to become Caesar Augustus) said the comet was a positive sign, while his enemies interpreted it as evil and signifying the civil war to come. In fact, the earliest sources that sided with Octavian said the object was a "star" and did not call it a comet. (See Ramsey and Licht, The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games for discussion.) In other words, it became politically expedient to get the heavens on one's side, and this led to such a positive interpretation of the comet. Similarly, Mithridates used the comet for propaganda purposes, but as seen on his coins he coaxed the object in other images to control what it could mean (see Ramsey, "Mithridates, the Banner of Ch'ih-Yu, and the Comet Coin", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 99 (1999): 192-253). Most importantly, these interpretations come post factum, meaning they were seen as positive after the fact and by the side that needed it to be a positive sign. After all, Mithridates isn't going to let people think a comet seen at his ascension be interpreted that he is tyrant. However, this cannot apply to a comet at Jesus' birth because the Magi would not have such a political impulse to make such a generally negative sign become that which told them of their own future savior.

As such, from what context we have, comets are almost a certainly negative sign, and the very few times it is seen otherwise is when those in power needed the astrologers to interpret things differently. We have no basis to justify seeing a comet as what would have made the Magi think that a wonderful Jewish king was to be born and was worthy of worship. The only way to save the comet theory is to have actual evidence that the comet of 5 (or 12) BCE was seen in a positive fashion, such as it came with a favorable conjunction. However, to do this requires then showing the conjunction would be so interpreted, and that is a problem all Star theories face. It means that for any comet proponent for the Star, he or she must give a reason why the stars were telling eastern astrologers that a great king was to be born. This means they end up relying on the conjunction hypotheses anyways, such as the the great conjunctions of 7 BCE (even Humphreys needs these conjunctions to make his theory stand).

Sentell probably also realizes this to some degree, so he does try to justify why the sky was saying "Jewish King" to the Magi, but I save such arguments for a later time. However, here is the problem that any Star proponent will have when justifying either a nova or a comet. In order to get the message across that modern astronomers want, the theory will depend on how strong a case they can make for what the sky was "saying" to the Magi. This means a theory can only be as strong as the supporting astrological considerations. However, this work is mostly speculative, so it is initially not probable to be correct. A speculation can be at best 50% likely to be true; if it is consistent with background knowledge such that there is nothing that initially excludes it (i.e. Julius Caesar got his shoulder wet while crossing the Rubicon), but without evidence there is nothing that can compel us to believe its truth. So because so many of the conjunction theories and the like are full of speculations, this has a combined effect of making the theory improbable. Then applying it to another event improbably seen to be good (i.e. a comet), this makes the theory even worse. The only way to make the comet theory possible is if an astrological theory can be made that is well-based on the evidence and so strong it outdoes the initial improbability of a comet as being the Star. (Basically, this is Bayes' Theorem in action. On its use in this sort of context, see Richard Carrier, "Bayes's Theorem for Beginners" in Hoffmann, Sources of the Jesus Tradition.)

As such, if Star scholars want to save their theories, they need to focus on making a robust astrological theory, one strong enough to overcome the bias against a comet as a positive sign. Moreover, it must be more than possible, but it has to be shown to be probable, meaning it must be realized on primary records and minimizes speculation. If this can be done will be investigated at another time. Needless to say, no one has done this.

One last thing I would like to consider: the use of Origen. The third century bishop in his Contra Celsum 1.59-60 compared the Star to a comet and is the most popular ancient source used to say the Star was some sort of natural phenomenon. A few things need to be realized:

1. Origen did not say that Star was a comet. His comparison was concerning its newness and significance. In the same sentence, Origen also compared the Star to a meteor. Obviously he could not mean that the Star was a comet and a meteor, but he shows their commonality in appearance and how they can be interpreted. Also, both comets and meteors were believed by most in the ancient world to be atmospheric phenomena.

2. Origen says that there was no prophecy that said a comet would appear to signal the birth of a new king. That means that there probably was no one in the ancient world believing that comets did predict such things since Origen was so widely-read, and such a record would have been in his favor. His statement as well as the inability of any modern scholar to find a record that said something along the lines of "comet = new king" makes a strong argument that there was no such belief or prophecy.

3. In other writings, Origen shows that be believed the Star was supernatural. In his Homily on Numbers 18.3-4 he says the Star came down to the house of the Holy Family much like how the dove came upon Jesus at his baptism by John. This means that Origen did NOT think the Star was a comet, and instead thought it was a miraculous object.

These considerations take the wind out of the sails of those who use Origen to support a nova or comet hypothesis.

Star of Bethlehem Index

Because of my physics and astronomy education, along with my own studies of Jewish/Christian history and writing, I have focused a lot on the Star of Bethlehem as told in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 2. Because of numerous posts I have made on the subject, and plans for more, I am creating an index. With time, hopefully this can be organized enough to be useful to a reader not deeply familiar with the subject. I also want to have an easy reference page for when I respond to others that research this topic as well but with whom I disagree.

Publishing in S&T Announcement

Responses to S&T Article

Dr. Michael Molnar Responds

Response to Molnar

Zygon Article Published
Post at Debunking Christianity
The Star and Zeitgeist

More on the Star and Zeitgeist

Dialog with James C. Sentell:

1. First Contact with James C. Sentell
2. Comments on Sentell's Hypothesis I
3. Comments on Sentell's Hypothesis II

There is also a lot of art and tradition attached to the Star:

The First Star of Bethlehem in Cinema (from La Vie et la Passion du Christ, 1903)

4th Century Sarcophagus of the Adoration of the Magi with Star

6th Century Mosaic of the Magi Following the Star

Many traditions of the Star and Magi are told by Richard Trexler, The Journey of the Magi.

In the future, I plan to write something that belongs on a shelf rather than a blog, but one must wait for that project to be completed.

Recent Stellar Developments

It's been a very busy month with classes, labs, and all the things that make graduate student life so much, let's say, fun. Much time gets consumed by homework from classes like statistical mechanics, but there has still been some time at least to travel to someone special and to relax a bit a read a book or two.

More interestingly, there is a comet up in the sky right now, Lulin, but it below fifth magnitude so it's pretty much impossible for me to see in the city. However, if you can, check it out while it's around; the comet is around Saturn right now, close to the constellation Leo, so it is up almost all night.

Speaking of stars, I have perused the Internet to find a website that went after my article in S&T from 2007, along with pretty much all of biblical studies that came down against the historicity of the Star of Bethlehem. I contacted the creator of the long web article about a couple of things that I thought were erroneous, such as comets were not seen as evil omens in Babylon (the Enuma Ana Enlil and MUL.APIN say otherwise), the Greek verb proago does not mean lead or go forward (it does, and it certainly does so in the context of Matt 2:9), epano does not mean to be right over a particular place (completely false), that proago was in the imperfect aorist tense (such a tense is impossible linguistically and logically), and so on. After some exchange the main page of the article has been taken down, for revisions I suspect. Another of his pages mentions revisions, but I haven't noticed any, at least not important ones.

Since our exchange, he hasn't contact me concerning my last statements, but life is time consuming, so I don't necessarily take it to be an attempt to dodge my points. Perhaps he is researching my arguments. Perhaps he will show the errors of my way, along with most of biblical scholarship and all scholars of the world that say comets were almost universally seen as evil omens--in particular, the author does not provide a single primary or secondary source that says Babylonians or Persians saw comets as positive omens, while I have provided primary sources to the contrary.

As for articles, it appears that I will be having one of my own writings published in the Journal of Higher Criticism in the near future. Under the new publishing system, the next issue will come out when there is at least 150 pages of material. Currently, it is up to 94 pages. It makes me so impatient, but good things come to those who wait. None the less, this means that I will have something published in a biblical studies journal! That should already give me more credibility than most all researchers into the Star of Bethlehem who haven't published in peer-reviewed biblical or theological journals in about a generation, and almost never astronomers.

With all that out of the way, it's time to get to work, and travel back to Michigan. Monday night at Michigan State, biologist and well-known atheist Richard Dawkins will begin touring the US on a speaking run. I plan on going. And if someone has a lot of cash, give it to Ray Comfort so he can give it to Richard Dawkins. Well, perhaps not. Why give to Mr. Comfort and give him enough credence, believing that he can actually produce a coherent argument against, well, most anything, let along evolutionary science.

When The Star Steers You Wrong--A Response To Michael Molnar

In my previous post, I mentioned that Dr Michael Molnar, astronomer, formerly a professor at Rutgers University, had written a short article for Sky & Telescope in their recent December issue. What I figured was he would restate his case for the Star of Bethlehem as an unusually powerful horoscope and signaled the birth of Christ to the Magi. However, his way of bringing his argument forth was a far cry from what I would have expected from a scientist, let alone in print.

Basically, Molnar called me a liar in print! Yes indeed, he said the following:

Echoing this charge [of ahistoricity of the Star], an article in this magazine one year ago concluded the star was an irresolvable pious myth (S&T: December 2007, p. 26). Regrettably, the article misrepresented by own research and ignored historical evidence. [p. 112]

Wow. I lied about his work and ignored evidence. In other words, I am dishonest and a terrible scholar. Odd that he did not name me in particular, though he brought up another S&T article from 1999 and mentioned the author, Bradley Schaefer, by name. Perhaps an avoidance of libel?

Did I misrepresent Molnar's work? I explained before that Molnar charged me in saying that I misconstrued his work by saying the Star was an occultation of Jupiter by the Moon. Rather, I said this was a positive condition for the horoscope (at least I said that Molnar said that it was positive), which was a part, or constituted, the Star of Bethlehem. I also pointed out that in Molnar's own book he uses the same language, and in fact more strongly than I did. Molnar's charge that I misconstrued his work is simply wrong.

Have I told him this? I contacted him in November of 2007 and early 2008. I have all the emails in my Gmail account. I tried to correspond on this subject, but unfortunately he was unresponsive. I explained how I had not misrepresented his work, presenting his own words in his book. He would not budge from his position and continued to insult me.

Ex:
"You then have made a seriously deceitful assessment of [my] book."

"The problem lies in your deceptive writing style and biased cherry-picking of facts that misled S&T readers about my book and the evidence in support of an historical basis to the Star. I am incredulous that you are now rationalizing your historically inaccurate ideas and ignoring your article’s inexcusably fraudulent attack on me."

"If anyone was shortchanged, it was not Christmas planetarium viewers as you claim, but S&T readers."

I was also accused of having a hidden agenda because I brought up parallel stories from the time of early Christianity that may have influenced the story. Seeing that this has been done for over a century and is part of the criterion of dissimilarity used by biblical scholars today, I cannot be said to have any more agenda than them.

So, the good doctor has made much hay about me, calling me a liar on multiple occasions. Further, he refuses to answer any of my emails. I sent him emails in early 2008, which he refused to respond. I sent an email in response to his article a couple of weeks ago as well, again without response. This seems to be childish, and to call me a liar and then hide from my criticism is cowardly in action. Thus, I need to write this entry to make clear the problems I have with Molnar's research.

I'm only going to focus on the evidences brought forth by Molnar in his article. He thinks these are the best, it would seem. I plan on writing a more lengthy and thorough article for a biblical journal in the near future.

The first line of evidence presented are Roman coins. These coins are from Antioch, which is in modern-day Turkey. That is, not Israel. What? In fact, his first coin says on it (in Greek), City of Antioch. Pardon me, but to have coins from a non-Jewish city to be about the Jewish nation is very odd. In recent years, there have been state coins for all 50 states, and they are almost done. There is a coin that says "New York" on it. We also see the Statue of Liberty. What would make us think that a coin that says "New York" on it had anything to do with, say, Maine, and that the Statue was a symbol of this state? Isn't Molnar doing the same thing?

Molnar speculates that the coins were minted in Antioch because of the census of 6-7 CE when Judea became part of Syria, in which the capitol of Antioch. So his connection between the coins and Judea can only rest on speculation. However, there are serious problems even with that. Firstly, of the coins he presents only some have dates on them, and those dated are from 12-13 CE, well after the time of the census and inclusion of Judea into the Roman Empire proper. This makes the connection on Molnar's part more imaginative. Worse, his undated coin was dated by his own source, G. MacDonald, to 5-6 CE, before the census and unification (he uses Actian years, and so the coin was minted in Actian year 36, the census in 37 according to the Jewish historian Josephus). If his source is correct, then Molnar's coin was minted before the event that connects Syria and Judea. Molnar's contention is temporally impossible!

Further, Molnar claimed in his book that these coins were ordered by the govenor of Syria. This is not the case since the earliest coins are not of the legate class, but of the civic class. That is, they were minted by the city for the city's own needs. In other words, these were Antiochian coins minted in Antioch for Antioch under the pressures of the needs of the citizens of Antioch. Not Rome. Not Judea. Antioch was a free city and was free to print such currency as seen fit.

Finally, there are coins with the same symbol in question, Aries the Ram, on later Antiochian coins, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Are they still celebrating the union of Judea and Syria? Worse is that there are coins from 55-56 CE with the symbol, but at that time Judea was not part of Syria. The province would go back and forth on being part of Rome properly or as a client kingdom under one of the Herods, Agrippa II, from 48 CE until later on (Josephus, BJ 2.9.5; AJ 19 and 20). The Jewish War began in 66 CE, so until then the nation was under not direct Roman but Herodian rule, and after the war the land was returned to Agrippa until his death in around 100 CE. Judea was not part of Syria in these times. We can be certain of this because Josephus tells us this information and the two figures knew each other. Josephus reproduces some of their interchanges (e.g. AJ 17.5.4; BJ 2.11.6; Vit. 54). If the capitol of Syria was producing coins with the same symbol referring to the unification of Judea to Syria, then such a connection cannot be considered true. Simply, Molnar's case was complete speculation that fails against the evidence. Hard.

What of astrological documents that use Aries to represent Judea? Molnar's best source is Ptolemy, who does say Aries was over Judea and other nearby lands. However, Ptolemy says that the constellation was representative of modern-day Germany, France and England. That's rather far from the Holy Land, no? What is frightening is that Ptolemy produces a list of what nations are under what constellations, and that list for Aries includes Germania, Gaul, and Britannia, as well as Palestine. However, Molnar reproduces this list but has an ellipsis where these non-Israeli nations would be. Shouldn't he have at least mentioned this somewhere in his book? Molnar also cites Valens, a 2nd century astrologer, but this figure does not mention Palestine at all. He does relate Coele Syria to part of Aries, but we would have to assume that the astrologer meant Judea into the lands of Coele Syria and the lands that surround it. He may mean that Phoenicia was what included Judea. For all we knew, Valens had no constellation for this region at all; he doesn't cover the whole known world (nor all the constellations of the zodiac for that matter).

What is really strange is Molnar's reading of the 1st century astrologer Manilius. He speaks of Syria and Egypt under Aries, but does not mention Palestine. Molnar figures that Syria included Palestine. But if he had flipped just two pages in the Loeb translation of the book (which Molnar used), he would have seen a description for lands under Aquarius which included regions between Egypt and Tyre (4.797-8). That's the Holy Land! This region he refers to he calls Phoenicia, a geography that he makes clear elsewhere (4.620-7). So Molnar's reading of Manilius is seriously botched. However, this translation includes in the preface a list of regions and constellations, which Molnar missed, along with a frontispiece that included a map with all the different regions with their corresponding constellation symbol. It had Aquarius near the Dead Sea! So there were three different places in the text that says that Aries was NOT the constellation of the Holy Land. How did Molnar miss this?

And if we look at other astrological geographies, there is much more contradiction that consensus (which the translator of Manilius noted himself). For example, Dorotheus, another 1st century astrologer, had Aries over Babylon and Gemini over Phoenicia--which probably includes Judea (Pingree, Dorothei Sindonii Carmen Astrologicum, pp. 427-8). A fourth century astrologer, Hephaistio, told of many traditions of astrological geography, some of it going back to Hipparcus. He tells us that Aries was over Babylon, Trace, Armenia, Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and the Red Sea, while Gemini was over Phoenicia. Syria also included rule by multiple constellations (Apotelesmatica I 1, pp. 4-29). Paulus Alexandrinus (4th century) and the Hermes Trismegistus also give contradicting astrological geographies, none of while say Aries was over the Holy Land. In fact, there is no majority position over all the treatises on astrological geography.

In case the paragraphs are hard to read, here's a recap, and see this link:

• Ptolemy: Aries over Palestine as well as Germania, Gaul, and Britannia (ignored my Molnar).
• Valens: Aries over Coele Syria and surrounding lands, but Phoenicia more likely to include Palestine and had different constellation (not considered by Molnar).
• Manilius: Aries over Syria; Aquarius over Phoenicia which included Judea (contra Molnar).
  
• Dorotheus: Aries over Babylon, Gemini over Phoenicia (not mentioned by Molnar).
  
• Hephastio's sources: Aries over modern-day Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria; Gemini over Phoenicia (not mentioned by Molnar).
  
• Paulus Alexandrinus: Aries over Persia; not sure which constellation for Palestine, but no probable choices include Aries (Syria had Capricorn, Egypt had Aquarius, Red Sea had Pisces) (not mentioned by Molnar).
• Hermes Trismegistus: Aries over ocean, Bactria, Lydia; Scorpio for Palestine (not mentioned by Molnar).

The last two texts were not even mentioned by Molnar, but he had access to their astrological geographies. Molnar makes much of of Cramer's Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, and on page 23 a list is reproduced from another work that gives the astrological geographies of these texts as well as Ptolemy's list for comparison. How could Molnar have missed this?

Overall, Molnar ignored as many works as he cited, and only one can actually support his position while it also contradicts it as well. The mass array of contradiction should tell us that a particular agreed-upon constellation for Judea is non-existent in the literature.

So far then, one line of evidence is ungrounded speculation, another is poor research in reading of texts. Perhaps then we can imagine the quality of his last piece of evidence. Actually, he thinks it is independent confirmation of his Star of Bethlehem, coming from the 4th century (Molnar wrote the wrong year for this figure in his recent article). The astrologer Firmicus, who converted to Christianity at some unknown time before writing his most famous work against heretical forms of Christianity, wrote a Latin astrological work called the Mathesis. In one part of his text, Firmicus mentions a person of almost divine nature (4.3.9). The astrological circumstances also have some similarity to Molnar's conjectured horoscope for Jesus, which was on April 17, 6 BCE.

What's wrong with this piece of evidence? Firstly, the horoscope is not said to be of any particular person and mixes multiple horoscopes, including that of Caesar Augustus', as Molnar himself says in his recent article and book. So that Jesus was referred to here at all can only be speculative. Besides, the figure described does not match Jesus well. It says the person would be a general of great military prowess; Jesus had no army, not to mention "turn the other cheek" is not an effective way of winning wars. (Note that Obama made comment to this as well in a speech not too long ago, about how if the military utilized the philosophy of the Sermon on the Mount it could not work.) Further, the astrological conditions mentioned in Firmicus' work does not match Molnar's horoscope. Molnar has the Moon occulting Jupiter while Jupiter was close to the Sun. In such a circumstance, the Moon would be new and waning. However, Firmicus says that in his horoscope the Moon is full and waxing. The exact opposite.

As such, Molnar simply read into the text what he wanted to see. Besides, it is certainly odd that Firmicus, in the 4th century, knew the exact day (perhaps hour) Jesus was born, while other Christians could not figure out what year Jesus was born! Further, Firmicus later wrote his book to defend orthodox Christianity, but he did not mention the Star. Since Firmicus does not repudiate his history as an astrologer, why does he not mention his knowledge of the Star? It makes no sense at all.

With all that, Molnar's evidence presented in his article is rubbish. It's speculation and grounded misreadings and lack of reading. I won't go into his horoscope for Nero here, which is his last piece of evidence in his book. Suffice it to say, it is based on extrapolations and calculations from Suetonius talking about Nero. Suetonius is probably the worst source for such information as he was more a gossip-artist than historian, especially in his later works, including his Nero. No classicist agrees that the passage he cites is historical (see Bradley, Suetonius' Life of Nero, p. 247; Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars, pp. 63-4; Baldwin, Suetonius, pp. 174-80; Warmington, Suetonius: Nero, pp. 76-8). Any deductions he makes from this, and they are problematic in themselves, cannot be based on solid ground. Again, all his evidences are either worthless or contradicts his intentions, such as the astrological texts cited above.

Dr. Molnar has been quite confident in his assertions, and in this article he seems to consider his work the final word on the subject. Here is the context for this:

Bradly Schaefer declared that my explanation, based on extensive Roman-era documents and free of historical revisionism, was the "final word" about the Star of Bethlehem. Sometimes a final word needs repeating.

Rather bold, no? Sure he first quotes Schaefer (who is not a biblical scholar nor a classicist as far as I know), but he repeats the phrase "final word" without quotes, so Molnar certainly seems to think his work is that good. Obviously, I disagree.

Now, I wrote the above because Molnar accused me of misrepresenting his views and ignored evidence. I have explained how I did not misrepresent him, and as for ignoring evidence, this is a lot of pot calling the kettle black. Here are some of the things that Molnar failed to consider in any sort of meaningful way, if at all:

1. Contradictions between Luke and Matthew--The gospels give mutually exclusive times when Jesus was born. They can't both be correct. So, why does he effectively ignore this point, which makes any claims for historicity all so much weaker? Besides, why does Molnar accept Matthew's date when Luke is more precise and the only Gospel writer claiming to write careful history? Doesn't this make Luke's date for Jesus' birth more probable, hence more likely born in 6/7 CE instead of 6 BCE?
2. Miracles in the New Testament--The gospels are full of miracles and events with about zero likelihood of historicity, including Matthew's Nativity. There is the virgin birth and the slaughtering of baby boys by Herod; the first is miraculous and biologically impossible, the latter is unrecorded by any historian, including Luke. If all these events in the birth narrative are not historical, or at least cannot be shown to be so, doesn't that say that the Star should be just about as likely since its existence is only mentioned in this one book (others repeating Matthew's tale)?
3. Authorship and Date--The Gospel of Matthew was not written until after 70 CE, and perhaps much later. The tax collector also did not write this work. The first mention of the gospel by the name "Gospel of Matthew" does not come about until about the end of the 2nd century! And the Greek says not that Matthew authored this work, but that the gospel is in the tradition of Matthew. It used kata Mathaion instead of Matthew in the genitive case, which is how authorship was stated in ancient works (cf. Josephus).
   
4. Genre--The question should have been asked in the first place, Is Matthew telling history? The question of genre of the gospels is a tough topic, but the way things are moving is that the first written gospel, Mark, was written more as a novel then biography, specifically a Jewish novel (Vines, The Problem of Marken Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel (2002)). Mark also used elements from Homer's epics (MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark). This gospel was also Matthew's primary source, along with Q and some other materials. If Matthew's story is based primarily on something that was more a novel than history, should we even think that Matthew is writing history/biography rather than producing a theological treatise?
5. Greek--Molnar tried to use the words in Matthew's account of the Star to relate to astrological words. He failed. See Birdsall in "Review Symposium: by Michael Molnar", The Star of Bethlehem", Journal for the History of Astronomy 33, 4 (2002): 391-4. The only phrase that survived was en te anatole to meaning sunrise or a heliacal rising. However, this need not have anything to do with astrology, as Molnar wants, because:
6. Molnar Ignores the Bible--A rising star can be seen in prophecy, namely Numbers 24:17. This was a well-known Messianic expectation as seen in Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Jewish revolt led by Simon bar Kochba. Would not the rising Star in Matthew be more likely a fulfillment of prophecy to fit Matthew's story rather than an astrological event? Further, Jesus is called the Morning Star multiple times in the New Testament (2 Peter 1:19; Revelation 2:28; 22:16). Perhaps Matthew means the same thing here with this Morning Star? Why should we consider the Star astrological/astronomical when a Morning Star is so important in Christian literature? The criterion of dissimilarity makes this object most unhistorical in essence.
   
7. Observability--Molnar knows that his rising star could not have been seen with the naked eye by the Magi. He thinks this is what made it good for astrologers and why non-astrologers missed it. However, the magi said they saw his Star, not calculated or inferred its existence. What is worse is that the movements of the Star could not have been observed by pre-telescope sky watchers. Molnar proposed that the "going before" and "stood over" in Matthew refer to the retrograde and stationary points of a planet, namely Jupiter. However, the movements of the planets near a stationary point cannot be seen and the stationary point cannot be known to the accuracy required by the Magi. They see the star going before them and then see it stop when they get to Bethlehem. This takes less than 2 hours. No planet can be seen to move relative to the stationary stars in 2 hours by the naked eye. That includes even the best observations by Tycho Brache. In fact, Ptolemy tells us this himself, that stationary points could not be known to the moment as the movement of the planet could not be distinguished for days before and after the stationary point (Almagest 9.2). Molnar's Star is not possible to see. How is an invisible Star preferable to a miraculous Star?
   
8. Physical Possibility--Again, the Star, according to Molnar, went into retrograde motion and then stopped during the time the Magi left Jerusalem and reach Bethlehem. The tense for the word that means "go before", proago, is in the imperfect case. This means that the Star may have begun to move. Hence, the retrograde period started and stopped in a 2 hour time frame. No planet comes close to having a retrograde loop this short. Mars, for example, is several weeks, and Mercury, the fastest planet, is about 3 weeks. For a planet to retrograde and stop again in this short period of time would require a violation of orbital mechanics. In other words, a miracle. Hence, Molnar's Star is non-physical and non-observable. How is this preferable to just a miraculous Star?
9. Reference frames--The Star is said to "go before" the Magi. However, retrograde loops and any planetary motion, as well as the movement of stars, novae, and comets in the night sky, all travel east or west. But this Star goes in the direction the Magi travel, which is south to Bethlehem from Jerusalem. Matthew's context is clear; the Star travels before the Magi, not the stars in the sky themselves. So, Matthew's context clearly contradicts any of the major candidates for the physical Star of Bethlehem.
10. Archaeology--I can't blame Molnar on this for his 1999 book. However, in 2005, Avriam Oshri of the IAA wrote an article for the Nov/Dec issue of Archaeology. He points out that Bethlehem was unpopulated centuries before and after Jesus was said to have been born there. In other words, there was no Bethlehem during the time of Jesus. How can there be a Star of Bethlehem if there was no Bethlehem?
11. Ancient Testimony--Every ancient Christian who mentioned the Star considered it miraculous. I can find no exceptions. This include Origen, who seemed to say the Star was something like a comet. However, he meant that the Star had a similar meaning as a comet does, that it means a great change will happen (change you can believe in!). He demonstrates his belief that the Star is of an amazing nature in Homilies on Numbers 18.4, where he compares the Star to the dove at Jesus' baptism that rested upon Jesus. Further, Christians said the Star was not astrological. For example, see Gregory of Nazianzus, Poemata Arcana 5.56-57. This is also the consensus of Christians throughout history that the Star described was miraculous, including Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and in modern times the Jesus Seminar as well as Raymond Brown in his Birth of the Messiah. 2000 years of consensus is pretty amazing.
12. Use of Astrological Texts--Even in Molnar's area of most research, he fails to understand the nature of the texts he uses. Namely, these books by Ptolemy and others cannot be used to make predictions. Barton in her Ancient Astrology (1994), pp. 114-42 compared the horoscope predictions between Manilius and Firmicus, taking the date of birth of Prince Charles. Both horoscope predictions were "correct" as far as astrology goes, but they contradicted each other immensely. Barton figures that these books were not meant for instruction but to demonstrate the learnedness of the the author. In other words, these books were to show off, not to be of practical use. And since different author's system's of casting horoscopes contradicts, they cannot be used as Molnar wants. What is worse is that Molnar confuses the very nature of natal astrology when he has the stars tells of the birth of a great figure when natal astrology does not do this. In natal horoscope astrology, the time of birth is recorded and then the horoscope is cast to predict the child's future. This is the opposite order that Molnar utilizes. Natal astrologers went birth, then stars; Molnar went stars, then birth. Molnar's method is more akin to omen prophecies, such as if this condition is seen, then this will happen. Molnar knows that ancient omen techniques are different that natal horoscope astrology (he makes that clear to me in his emails as well). Hence, Molnar completely abused astrology in not understanding how the instrument was used in the past.
13. Wrong Astrology--What is also wrong with Molnar's use of astrology is that he focuses on the wrong region. The Magi are from "the East," probably referring to the lands of the Parthian Empire, including Persia and Babylon. However, all of Molnar's astrological texts are from the Roman world. Molnar cites a line from Strabo that the Chaldeans/Magi were casting natal horoscopes, but that says nothing on how they produced horoscopes. This is a major problem. And scholars who have investigated how the later Babylonians and their neighbors produced horoscopes have said that it is a big unknown (Rochberg, The Heavenly Writings, p. 118). The horoscopes that have been recovered do not have key points on them that Western or Hellenistic horoscopes have, such as the Midheaven or the Lot of Fortune. And in later times, the astrological methods of Ptolemy and those of the Persians were still distinct (Abu Ma'shar, Yamamoto, Burnett, On Historical Astrology: The Book of Religious Dynasties (on the Great Conjuctions), p. 573, n. 2). So, even if Molnar was correct about anything on the constellations for regions, it wouldn't matter because that says nothing of what was believed in Persia. Molnar's efforts are a complete red herring.

So, when it comes to ignoring historical evidence, I think that Molnar has a much greater problem here that I do. In effect, Molnar ignored the whole of biblical scholarship, which you would think would be an important area to look into considering that his thesis is something in the area of biblical studies. How is this different than a creationist arguing about the retention of heat in the earth's core, claiming it proves the earth is not billions of years old, while ignoring radioactivity? The creationist claims that physics proves something, but to get that conclusion he or she must ignore much of physics. Similarly, scientists that argue about the Star without looking into biblical studies make the same mistake.

So with all this, will this make Molnar respond to me when I email him? Will he at least try and defend his thesis on these points, to which he has ignored when I have brought them to his attention? I wrote about the observational problems in my article and in my emails to Molnar, but he didn't even mention this point, the point that I think falsifies his theory all on its own. After all, if what Molnar tries to describe is what the Magi observed, and that observation was impossible, is that not the death of a theory?

None the less, I think I have demonstrated that Molnar's work is not the "final word" on the subject, and instead any proponent of a natural Star of Bethlehem has a huge task in front of them. But if instead one sees what the texts says and to what purpose it was written, it makes so much more sense that the author of Matthew was not writing history, his Star was purposefully miraculous, and was written to show that Jesus was God's anointed one, the Morning Star, son of the Dawn (Isaiah 14:12).

What should be investigated instead is why was the Morning Star placed where it is in the text and what does it mean in the context of 1st-century Jewish theology? That is worthy of a paper, which I am producing now.

NOTE: I may fix some sentences in the future for this post.

The Star Returns to the Sky . . . & Telescope

As I had been informed before several months ago, the editors of Sky & Telescope have allowed Dr. Michael Molnar to write a short article pertaining to the Star of Bethlehem, largely because of his response to my article written in the 2007 December issue of the magazine. In my article, I mentioned his book, The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi (Rutgers: 2001), comparing his belief that the occultation of Jupiter by the Moon was a positive sign to an ancient Babylonian astrological treatise that said this signified the death of a king. I probably didn't spill more than 50 words on his work in particular, though I did effectively "spit in the face" of theories such as comets, novae, and a later death for King Herod, along with any natural hypothesis for the Star--respectfully in my opinion.

There was already plenty of back and forth on the subject on the Talk Back page for my article on the S&T web page, to which Dr. Molnar participated in. Rather, we had some statements written to each other, carbon-copied to the editors of the magazine, though I suspect they were not reading these exchanges completely--they have jobs, you know. In the end, the conversation was not terribly profitable and Dr. Molnar stopped responding to emails I sent to him. Perhaps things can change now.

I have not read his new article, and it is not mentioned on the cover image of the newest S&T magazine, but appears to be the last page. I suspect he had about 500 words of space given to his response. Plus, the editors told me that his article was not going to be a reply to my article, per se. So, I don't really know the content until I read what he has. That may be a few weeks until the newest issue arrives where I am.

If he says something that I think is worth while responding to publicly, I may post that here. More likely, I will do some private conversing, which I think would be more respectful. Besides, a 500-word essay isn't going to be something earth-shattering.

In the mean time, I wish to make one point clear. In a letter reprinted in the May 2008 issue of S&T, Molnar says that I mischaracterized his position on the Star. I said that in Molnar's view, the occultation of Jupiter by the Moon was a positive sign that may have constituted the Star of Bethlehem. Molnar's response to me was that he did not say the Star of Bethlehem was this occultation.

And that is not what I said. Again, I said that this was a positive sign (in Molnar's opinion) that may have constituted the Star. Constitute is not the same as is. Besides, in Molnar's own book, he said the following "if the heliacal rising and lunar occultation of Jupiter constitute the Star of Bethlehem . . ." (p. 96). Molnar himself says that the occultation constituted, or was a part of, the Star. In fact, my version of what Molnar said is more cautious, as I say it was a positive sign that may have been part of what was the Star of Bethlehem. I was doubly-cautious in this use of terms, and without much loss of precision as I see it. As such, I did nothing to set up a strawman of Molnar's arguments at all.

This was Molnar's chief beef with my article, but as we conversed other things came up, which I will not get into here. In those conversations, however, it seemed that Molnar failed to take on my key points and made statements that mischaracterized my position and statements. Now, that may sound like I am the pot calling the kettle black, but I must say that hypocrisy was avoided the best I could.

Let me say though, that the most important point that I tried to make, to which Dr. Molnar made no response, was that his Star's movements would have been observationally impossible for naked-eye observers, not only at the rising of the Star, but, more importantly, in the way it moved from the time of the Magi left Jerusalem until they reached Bethlehem, a distance of several kilometers, at most a two-hour trip on foot. It would seem that if you have a hypothesis for what the Magi saw, and what you describe could not have been seen, that should be the kiss of death to such a hypothesis. I see this as the most important problem with Dr. Molnar's, and most every other's, estimation for what the Star of Bethlehem was--the biggest problem assuming that this is reliable testimony of events.

Should one not make that assumption, and should one observe the critical issues of historicity, it should be realized just how silly it is to try to explain something naturally where there is no reason to think such a thing is there. After all, is it not a waste of time to figure out the preferred type of pizza is consumed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (if he/she/it eats pizza at all)? With this story, we don't know who the author was, the document itself was written at least post-70 CE (2nd century according to more radical scholars), not independently attested, contradicted by other accounts (including the account given by the only gospel writer claiming to write history), of questionable genre (was the gospel even meant to be history/biography?), the author is generally willing to tell tales that are almost certainly unreliable (such as in ch 27 where the dead saints come to life and enter Jerusalem, which no historian or other gospel writer claims happened--how could that have missed that!?!), and the very town Jesus was said to be born in was uninhabited for centuries before, during, and after the time of Jesus (A. Oshri, "Where Was Jesus Born?" Archaeology 58, 6 (2005)). So, this alone should make the search a fool's errand, to sift through the sands of time for an event that didn't happen (if there was no Bethlehem, how could there have been a Star of Bethlehem?).

Well, until I read Dr. Molnar's response, I wouldn't say more on his thesis.

On the other hand of scholarship, I am really getting excited about Richard Carrier's work on his book on the historicity of Jesus as well as the first meeting of The Jesus Project, started by R. Joseph Hoffmann and CSER. As for my research, I hope to send an article out of the Journal of Higher Criticism in the near future about my own investigation into the meaning of the Star of Bethlehem and its source-critical implications.

I have hit the big time!

I don't know what it takes to be considered "big" on the Internet especially without displaying actions of extreme stupidity, such as those of certain celebrities, but I think I can say that there is one way of doing it in an academic way. Recently, yours truly has been interviewed for a few newspapers, especially for one in Pennsylvania, in the same county that the Dover trial took place, as well as in my homeland. (Note: I don't think the York county link works anymore so you may need to do some work to get to the article.) A few bloggers and amateur astronomy sites make mention to me, as well as a PBS website (on the side). But my big break must be this: I have been referenced on Wikipedia! It is a very short mention and puts me in company with a few other scholars mentioned in the same foot note, but why should I complain? Do note that I did not write myself in, so someone has taken me seriously.

Another person that I have been communicating with is a Dr. Michael Covington at the University of Georgia. I came across his blog and have had a short amount of back and forth about the issue. Hopefully it will be productive since this person seems to know Greek and Hebrew (and more C.S. Lewis than I think is worth while). This already then is more of a plus in credentials than another professor I have been talking with, Dr. Michael Molnar, formerly of Rutgers and author of his own book (1999) and articles on the subject. At this point, there has been a lull in the amount of back and forth between us, but that is probably because Dr. Molnar is enjoying his vacation, as everyone should be this time of year, but it seems that there is a significant amount of friction between the two of us, especially in that he feels I have misrepresented his work. Of course I disagree, but that is why I want to keep the conversation going, especially if he writes more articles or has more TV/radio interviews, as he has recently for FOX News. (I wonder why FOX didn't get in contact with me? Could it be that I did not line up with what conservative audiences would want to hear?)

Perhaps more attention will come my way if and when I publish an entire book on the subject. (The "if" factor is the condition that a publisher would take the time to print such a work.)

The Star of Bethlehem and those that still follow it

Well, so far there have been some interesting comments on the web page about my article on the Star of Bethlehem and Sky & Telescope, and hopefully my responses have been at a reasonable level of content and conduct, though at least one thinks otherwise. I wonder how many or for how long the responses will be about how I am a "charlatan", "hypocrite", "intolerant", "arrogant", "opinionated", and how such a person will "neither trust nor believe that you are 'in agreement with the best scholarship;'” oh, and that's all from just one person! Well, I'll let others be the judge of the truth of these statements for those that read what I have done.

There is also a wealth of incoherence as well. One person wants to argue that there cannot be a contradiction between Matthew and Luke because such a mistake would have been caught by the early Christians. Sorry, but a mistake is not made true because a bunch of people happened to have accepted it decades after the fact when no one could double-check sources, ask witnesses, and that is if anyone in the movement had an iota of skepticism. Besides, the early Christians contradicted each other on most every detail, great and small. Irenaeus thought Jesus lived up to near the age of 50 and died under Emperor Claudius, well after the time of Pilate's rule in Judea; Tertullian said that Saturnius was governor of Syria when Jesus was born, instead of Quirinus as Luke said; etc. The argument is also based on the statement that "ancient Rome was a modern civilization in every respect." So, ancient and modern as the same now? I guess white and black are the same color, up and down mean the same, and I'm raking in money from by lucrative stock trades in Japan. I'm also confused why one person brought up the procedures at Abrams Planetarium. What does that even have to do with the historical truth of the Star? Smells like a red herring to me.

Fortunately, there have also been a fair number of good responses, and I would bet that there will be more positive comments to come, along with some constructive criticism.

Article Away!

My article in Sky & Telescope is now being advertised on their website and the magazine should be out on news stands soon. I will be reading it soon and checking out how the art work came out and if there are any other comments about the Star in this issue.

My Name in Lights, er . . . Print

Because there are so many of you that read my blog, it should be good to let you know that it appears I will be able to have something of my views in another form of distribution. For at least a year now I have been researching the natural explanations of the Star of Bethlehem (affectionately known as the SoB by planetarium staff) and have found these explanations to all fail; some just fail much worse than others. It becomes all the worse when thus hypotheses depend on changing the dates of the reign of Herod the Great or the census of Cyrenius (Quirinius). There's a ten-year contradiction at least which obviously is no good for inerrantists or for anyone that wants to consider the story in Matthew as historically reliable. Oh, and never mind that this is the same author that has a virgin birth, and unrecorded of the slaughter of tens or hundreds of babies, has earthquakes and dead men rising when Jesus died and entering Jerusalem, not to mention the resurrection of another dead man. But the SoB, that may be real. Based on what? Unfortunately, there seems to be nothing that supports this tale as a reliable account.

And now I get to tell a lot of people. Sky & Telescope has stated that they are willing to print an article on the subject by me, though it will be limited in words, making a full argument impossible. Try refuting four centuries of research in less than 2000 words! But that is what I am going to try. See you in December.