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.

Weddings!

So far, January has been nice and crazy. The new President certainly is worth talking about, and already the politics is getting hot. The winter storms recently have certainly made life a bit odd, considering the university actually closed yesterday. That never happened when I was at MSU, and the last time it did in 1994 was when the wind chill was 40F below, considered possibly lethal to walking students. It wasn't that bad here in Ohio, but the roads were supposed to have been aweful.

But what is making this month eventful for me are weddings. There are two this month, and in both I'm a groomsman. The first was a couple of weeks ago, and the next is on the last day of the month. This means a lot of tux fitting and a lot of driving. Not to mention lots of bachelor parties, including in other nations--Canada. Of course, I do like looking nice and dancing crazy with my girlfriend, but there is a lot of running around to be done, especially when I have to drive for more than four hours just to get to any one location I need to be in for Michigan events. But, in the end, it is worth it.

Also, the newest issue of Sky & Telescope has hit news stands, so my letter to the editor should be in there, but I haven't checked yet. I wonder what responses I can expect. I bet this will make an interesting February.

What a December, What a Year!

Well, it's nearing the end of 2008. With that comes much remembrances of months past, and boy did a lot happen in this year. Of course there was the huge presidential election with a huge route in favor of the Democratic party, and the events in India and Iraq have been very newsworthy, but my personal life has had much to talk about.

At the beginning of the year, I was not in my home state, but instead in Bavaria, celebrating with mein Schatz along with her family. With this wonder person in my life, I traveled through some of Canada, including a visit to Niagara Falls; later came a big trip through the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, probably hitting every piece of land that needs to be seen before someone kicks the bucket up there. I also graduated from Michigan State in May and started grad studies at the Ohio State University, and fortunately I have passed all my classes and I think I did well as a TA--at least some of the students said I was good. There was also a trip back to Germany for about a month, which also allowed visits to CERN outside of Geneva as well as some of nearby France, a bit of Austria, and Neuschwanstein back in Bavaria, along with the great city of Berlin.

As if that was not enough traveling, my partner and I spent a week on Manhattan Island. What an amazing city, especially during Christmas time with all the lights and trees up all around the major plazas and stores. And lest one forget, there is still Lady Liberty, which has become very restricted in visiting inside since 2001 for obvious reasons.

Also in good news, my response earlier to an article by Dr. Molnar will be mentioned in the March issue of Sky & Telescope with a link to that blog post. Further, I have sent an article for review to the Journal of Higher Criticism, and hopefully it is up to par with scholarly method and writing.

Finally, after a trip up north to see an elk reservation--which my girlfriend first though were supposed to be moose until the difference in European understanding was made clear--I am home with my family.

So, Happy Holidays to all.

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.

Worth the Cost? YES!

Well, as mentioned before, the LHC is now accelerating particles about, with collisions scheduled for late October. However, as cool as it is to have particle moving at 99.9999999% the speed of light in tubes colder than space (below 2 degrees Kelvin), there are people wondering about the utility of the project. The cost has been estimated to be between 3 and 7 billion euro (say $5-10 billion), which is quite large. I sure would like to have that sort of cash.

So, there have been people asking these questions very publicly.



Brian Cox of CERN certainly made some good points, but perhaps I can also say a few things since I don't have to fit into a time slot.

Firstly, understanding the fundamentals of physics is helpful for any future scientific and practical innovation. Who could possibly have thought of the day-to-day requirements of atomic theory and relativity at the turn of the century. The structure of an atom, if it was a sort of jelly, or a solar system model, or something more exotic--no matter which, if someone asked what sort of impact this would have on a person's life, I doubt Rutherford could have answered such a question. However, with an understanding of atomic theory, we have extremely accurate clocks, electricity, smoke detectors, chemotherapy, and more. Innovations in computers would have been difficult, if not impossible, without an understanding of the quantum realm, stuff that would have seemed like intellectual masturbation in the 1920s, but now is a necessity for the modern world. And as for Einstein's theories, if humans did not understand general relativity GPS satellites would not be able to work--they would be off by miles. There is no way any of these great scientists could have known about the particle applications of their theories in the future.

The same can and should be said of high energy particle physics. Having a more complete theory of the subatomic universe can only be helpful in the future. Who knows what sorts of things make be useful in having strange quarks or particles that only work with the weak nuclear force. Or imagine that we learn enough about the world of force particles that we can manipulate them. If we could weaken gravity or decrease the mass of objects, space travel would be easy. If we could somehow weaken the repulsion between nuclei of atoms, fusion energy would be a snap. Now, no one knows if any of these sorts of things are possible. But how can we found out unless we do the research?

As for the expense, the other person in the video, David King, mentioned using the money for trying to cure cancer. Well, he does realize that this is not an either-or situation. Besides, the US alone has spend about $200 billion since 1971, and other nations have major investments in this area as well. Progress has been made, but no cure has come. As for global warming, the cost for getting all vehicles to be clean, power stations to be clean, etc., that could cost trillions of dollars. The US uses about 29000 billion kWh, and the cost of nuke power is $2000 per kWh, so the cost is huge on this front. $10 billion is nothing by comparison. Now, this is not to say that combating global climate change isn't worth while. What the problem is is the false dichotomy--this is not an either-or situation, nor is it that if a nation funds CERN it cannot fight cancer or help evade further change to the climate. Nor does it mean that nations cannot feed the poor, heal the sick, and so on. Besides, if one really wants to look at things that are expensive, look at the US military budget.

The annual budget for the US military is over $400 billion--that's at least 40 CERNs a year, and that $10 billion for CERN is over several years. Heck, a single B2 stealth bomber costs around $2 billion, and there are 21 of them. The program the the F22 Raptor, America's newest air fighter, costs over $60 billion, and no nation is anywhere near competing with it at this time, nor in the near future (Russia' plane is far away, and they are not so hostile, nor insane). Now, I'm a fan of national security, secure sovereignty of my home country, and I think the things the military has are hyper-awesome, but the money funneled into this area is far and away more than any science experiment or research project. (And need I remind the US government, it was research into theoretical physics that lead to the invention that helped end of the Second World War, though at a terrible cost of human life?)

So, the whole cost question, when in proper context, it nothing to be so worried about. CERN is not taking away the ability to research new medicines and treatments. Besides, it is pharmaceutical companies that are failing us right now for not researching the creation of new antibiotics; if germs become immune to all antibiotics (and there are some!), how shall we defend ourselves from disease? Of course, drug companies invest in what is profitable, so there are tens of penis pills out there. I feel for the guy with erectile dysfunction, but is this really more important than, say, curing cancer or preventing the next super-bug from causing a terrible pandemic? So, if we were to go by shear economic desires, we would all have great sex but short lifespans.

Investments have to be more forward thinking than what sells or is desired at the moment. I know that curing disease and preventing world climate disasters are forward-thinking, but usually people want something practical in the hear and now. Heck, many people are uninteresting in climate change because it's in the future. What people want obviously is not the best way to go about giving the people they want. Passions are whimsical, ephemeral, and never satisfied. Investments in research should of course at least have some potential for giving something back, but always thinking towards a dollars in-dollars out approach does not lead to the discoveries that can produce entire new industries.

Further, consider that there are always spin-offs that come about when there is a major investment in science projects. The Apollo program gave use better computers and Velcro. CERN was the driving force for the creation of the Internet. As mentioned in the video, the cooling systems at the LHC are to be utilized in the research in producing electricity from fusion. Who can say what things can come about because of the work in these areas?

Now, some will argue that these sorts of innovations would have been brought about anyways. This always seems to be odd to me. After all, does this mean that Newton does not deserve credit for formulating his laws of motion because someone else would have done it eventually? By this line of thinking, no one ever deserves much credit for anything. Such nihilism is not worth further dissection.

Finally, there is the human factor. Understanding the very fabric of space, the essence of matter and energy, to ability to be familiar with and manipulate time and possibly extra dimensions--knowing where our cosmos has come from, where it is going, where we fit in. Are these not the sorts of questions we want answered? Is not an answer to these sorts of things a profit from investment, a kick-back that is eternal and wholesome? If such a search is not moving to the very soul of a person, I don't know what is.

Science has brought us amazing realizations. Astronomy and physics has shown us that we are all created from the same matter, atoms forged in the furnaces of stars over eons of time, distributed throughout the galaxy. Is not realizing that we are star stuff one of the ways of seeing our connection to the cosmos, to see we are a part of it, not separate? When you look into the Orion Nebula, you can see the collapse of clouds of gas and dust, the creation of stars and planetary systems. You can witness Creation, the formation of new worlds, new earths, new intelligences to be. Humans have always tied themselves to the workings of the Cosmos. The Sun tells us when to be awake and to sleep. The rising of stars told our ancestors when to plant, when to harvest, when to hunt, and how to navigate. The phases of the moon helped in timing the feminine cycles, and the setting and rising of planets and stars led the imaginations of cultures to see death and rebirth as a part of the universe. Our life beyond life has been with the stars--the rising sun was the resurrection, the stars were ancestors or angels or gods, the Milky Way was their path. Modern astronomy has brought us the life and death of stars, along with the realization that death leads to new life. When humans understand that this is the world we live in, they, no, we can place realize what we are and where we are going. It cannot be done with ignorance or looking only at a particular problem to be solved. The understanding of life takes a lifetime.

And physics is one of the ways to see where were are in the world. The fundamental particles are what we are made of, and knowing their origins and fate guides the answer to our own. The only other science that I would dare say help us understand out place as well as astronomy/physics would be biology. And what amazing finds have been found there!

The cost of CERN is large in the short-term, but its cost in comparison to other projects is not so amazing, and its long-term benefits are inestimable. I won't advocating giving all we have to this one project, but remember that this investment is in our very understanding of everything, including ourselves. (Perhaps its such discovery that is really scaring people--who we are can be frightening.)

To the State of Confusion . . . er, Ohio

In less than a weak now, I will be moving to my new alma matter, the Ohio State University. It's odd that they start about a month after all other universities, but this have given me some time to do research that I could not possibly have the time for once graduate classes start. I have seen how absorbing of time they are for my girlfriend (whom I love). However, I won't mind joining a school with a winning football team!

I king of want to get started though. To get back into the swing of physics problems would be nice, especially if in my first semester I can do quantum theory. I'd rather do that over classical mechanics or electromagnetism. If you ever took grad-level physics, you know why this is what I desire. But, I have to get through it anyways.

I wonder how much CERN is going to be a part of my classes as well since they have begun accelerating particles there. As of now, first collisions are supposed to happen on Oct 21 of this year. However, it will be a long, long time before useful statistics are collected, and come Christmas Cern will be turned off for repairs. There won't be any discoveries of the Higg's boson by the end of this year then, at least not at CERN, and I doubt Fermilab will come from behind and demonstrate the existence of this last particle of the Standard Model. Yet, it is still more likely than CERN destroying the world--by the way, CERN cannot destroy the world even if the scientists tried.

As for CERN, my good friend has posted some answers to questions about the LHC at her blog. She was asked by the school newspaper to answer these questions and she made them more accessible this way. Good stuff, mein Schatz.

Well, time for me to pack.