Thank you for visiting. Interesting theory; perhaps not one to which I subscribe, but then, none of us were there when it happened (or didn’t happen)! Of course, the fact that only the Gospel of Matthew mentions the star could indicate a revisionist attempt by the other Gospel writers to take astrology out of the picture.

Please let me know when your article comes out - I’ll be happy to link to it from my homepage.

Nina

I believe the Star of Bethlehem is a historical fiction and was “invented” after the fact to bolster Jesus’ credibility in a world that was dominated by Stoicism and the notion that the stars illustrated one’s Fate. So certainly the birth of a Savior would warrant a special star. I believe this story was manufactured to “sell” Jesus in a world that was very much dominated by astrology.

Isn’t it weird that the “star” story only appears in the Gospel of Matthew? You would think the angels in Luke would mention something about the Star to the shepherds. They don’t. And John, arguably the most “spiritual” Gospel, makes no mention of the star.

I am working on a scholarly article on this subject, but thought I would mention the basics here in light of your thread.

Sincerely,

Kenneth

I am not exactly sure what points you are making regarding the above post, but let me address a couple of issues in your post:

1. The heliocentric model was proposed as long as 3000 years ago in Indian Vedic texts, complete with accurate calculations of the relative sizes of the Earth and Sun. Heliocentrism was not “revealed” upon the invention of the telescope.

2. Astrology did not start getting “dissed” after the invention of the telescope. It had been disputed and maligned for a lot longer than that. Its general decline occurred around the Enlightenment, and is not tied to one particular event or invention.

3. To say that the New Testament is allegorical is deeply offensive to those who accept it as fact. Enough said.

Warmly,
Nina

From Booklist
Christian scholars have expended considerable ingenuity in providing scientific glosses for the scriptural account of the Star that shone above Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth. Astronomer Molnar disputes such explanations precisely because they derive from a modern perspective far removed from the outlook of ancient stargazers, who eagerly scanned the heavens for signs of the Messiah’s birth. Ancient texts show conclusively that no portent would have excited greater expectations of a divine birth in Judea than a lunar occultation of Jupiter in the constellation Aries. And because sophisticated computer calculations reveal that such an eclipse did occur on April seventeenth in the year 6 B.C., Molnar fixes this as the celestial event that signaled the Christ child’s birth. This assertion does require pushing Christ’s birth back two years earlier than the commonly accepted 4 B.C. But evidence gleaned from early Roman and Jewish sources makes an earlier Nativity plausible. The uncanny fit of all the ancient and modern pieces of this puzzle makes for a highly persuasive argument. Bryce Christensen

Owen Gingerich, Harward-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
“Molnar’s The Star of Bethlehem is a fascinating contribution to the immense literature that attempts to come to terms with the Christmas Star represented in Matthew’s Gospel. In my opinion, this book is the most original and important contribution of the entire twentieth century on the thorny question of how events recorded there, should be interpreted.”