The Great Christ Comet
Page 17
6
“A Stranger midst the Orbs of Light”
The Star as a Comet
Having evaluated the other major hypotheses put forward to explain the Bethlehem Star in chapter 4, and having then introduced comets in chapter 5, we must now turn to the key question: Could the Star of Bethlehem have been a comet?1
In this chapter we will consider the two comet proposals currently on the table—the Halley’s Comet and the 5 BC Comet theories—before making a more robust case for the view that the Star is to be identified as one of the icy balls of dirt and dust zipping around the solar system in eccentric orbits.
A Brief History of the Comet Hypothesis
The comet hypothesis has a long history, stretching back into the first three centuries of the Christian era. At the start of the second century, Ignatius, probably drawing on an established and authoritative hymn from the first century, referred to the Star in terms that were strongly suggestive of a comet. According to this tradition, the Star was new, “brighter than all the stars,” and provoked astonishment because it was so unlike anything else in the heavens (To the Ephesians 19:2).
The Protevangelium of James (Gospel of James) dates to around AD 150. According to it, in response to Herod’s question regarding what celestial sign the Magi saw that related to the newborn King, the Magi answered, “We saw an immense star [astera pammegethē] shining among these stars and causing them to become dim, so that they no longer shone; and we knew that a king had been born in Israel” (21:2–3).2 As Olson and Pasachoff point out, here, “the Protevangelium of James describes the strange new star in language only befitting a comet.”3
Then, in the first half of the third century, Origen made explicit his conviction that the Star was a comet, in Contra Celsum 1.58–59:
We consider that the star that was seen “at its rising” was a new star, and not like any of the normal celestial bodies, either those in the fixed sphere [above] or those in the lower spheres. Rather, it should be reckoned with the celestial bodies which occur from time to time, known as “hairy stars,” “beams,”4 “beards,” “wine-jars,” or any other such name by which the Greeks like to describe their various forms. We establish this point in the following way:
It has been noticed that at the occurrence of momentous events and at the most profound transitions on earth, stars of this kind appear, announcing changes in dynasties or the breaking out of wars, or the occurrence of some phenomenon in the human realm that shakes affairs on earth. We have read in the book called Concerning Comets by Chaeremon the Stoic that at times comets have appeared when good events were about to occur. He has given an account of such occurrences. If, then, at the commencement of new dynasties or on the occasion of other momentous events on earth, the so-called “hairy star” or some similar body [namely, the “beam,” “beard,” “wine-jar,” or some other type of comet] appears, why would it be a great surprise that a star should have appeared at the birth of the one who was going to introduce new ideas to the human race and to reveal his teaching not only to Jews, but also to Greeks, and to many barbarian nations in addition? Now I would point out with respect to comets that there is no prophecy about comets in circulation stating that such and such a comet would appear at the rise of a particular kingdom or at a particular time. However, the star which appeared at Jesus’ birth had been prophesied by Balaam, recorded by Moses, when he said: “A star shall appear out of Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of Israel.”5
Probably no one has done more to promote the comet hypothesis than Giotto di Bondone (1266/1267–1337), the medieval Italian artist. At the turn of the fourteenth century he painted a fresco entitled “The Adoration of the Magi” in Padua’s Arena Chapel, in which he portrayed the Star of Bethlehem as a comet (fig. 6.1). Many have thought that he was inspired by the apparition of Halley’s Comet in 1301, although that is questionable.6 In memory of this depiction of the Magi’s Star, the European Space Agency named the robotic spacecraft sent to explore Halley’s Comet, as well as the whole mission, Giotto.7
FIG. 6.1 Giotto’s “Adoration of the Magi” fresco in Padua—notable for its picture of the comet, often dubiously identified with Halley’s 1301 apparition. Image credit: The Athenaeum.
In recent decades, advocates of the comet hypothesis have fallen into two groups: those who identify it as Halley’s Comet,8 and those who maintain that it is the 70+-day “broom star comet” of spring 5 BC mentioned in Chinese astronomical records.9
The Halley’s Comet Theory Evaluated
The view that the Star was Halley’s Comet is often the only version of the comet hypothesis that is evaluated by those criticizing the position.10
Halley’s Comet (officially designated 1P/Halley) has historically been one of the most consistently impressive comets. For more than 2,000 years it has faithfully returned every 75–80 years, gracing our skies as recently as 1985–1986. As mentioned in the last chapter, the Chinese Han shu preserved the record of a comet that was regarded as of great astrological significance: in August of the year 12 BC a “bushy star comet” was observed near Canis Minor. It remained in the skies for some 56 days before finally disappearing, last being seen between Ophiuchus and Scorpius.11 It is generally accepted that this was an apparition of 1P/Halley.
The Chinese record of Halley’s Comet in 12 BC was the most exhaustive comet report up to the sixth century. It reveals that it was seen from August 26, when it was in Gemini in the eastern morning sky, to October 20, when it was in Scorpius, low in the western sky. Significantly, the comet came to within 0.16 AU of Earth on September 9, permitting Earth-dwellers to see an approximately 25-degree tail around that time, although unfortunately this was a month before perihelion (October 10) and so the comet’s brightness was only first magnitude. The comet, with its striking tail, was standing up near-vertically over the western horizon from September 11 to 15.
There are, then, a couple of interesting points of comparison between this apparition of Halley’s Comet and the Star of Bethlehem. First, Mark Littmann and Don Yeomans point out that, just as the Star of Bethlehem was seen in the eastern sky and then led the Magi westward to Jerusalem, so also, viewed from the Middle East, Halley’s Comet beamed brightly over the eastern horizon at the start of September and then over the western horizon later in the month.12 Second, for a few days in mid-September, the comet, with its sizable tail, could readily have been described as standing over the western horizon.
FIG. 6.2 Halley’s Comet on June 6, 1910. A photograph taken by the Yerkes Observatory and published in an article in the New York Times on July 3, 1910. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.
FIG. 6.3 Halley’s Comet in 1066 as portrayed on Scene 32 of the Bayeux Tapestry. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.
The temptation to identify Halley’s Comet in 12 BC with the Star of Bethlehem has proved too great for some. James Fleming tried to support this hypothesis by arguing that there was a census in 12 BC that would qualify as Quirinius’s first census (Luke 2:2), which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth.13 According to Nikos Kokkinos, the Magi departed for Judea shortly after seeing the comet for the first time and arrived in Jerusalem “by mid-September 12 B.C.”14
However, upon close examination this hypothesis quickly disintegrates.
First and foremost, a date of 12 BC is impossibly early for the birth of Jesus. Those who argue for the 12 BC Halley’s Comet apparition end up having to undertake a radical revision of the chronology of Jesus’s life. Jerry Vardaman, for example, dates the commencement of Jesus’s ministry to AD 15 and the crucifixion to AD 21.15 This naturally raises a whole raft of serious problems, for example, with respect to Luke 3:1–3 (John the Baptist began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,” who came to the throne in AD 14); John 2:20 (“it took/has taken16 forty-six years to build this temple”); the established chronology of Pontius Pilate (AD 26–36); and the history of the early church. The evidence strongly favors the view that Jesus was bo
rn in 6 or 5 BC and then died in AD 30 or 33. The fact that Halley’s Comet appeared in 12 BC means that it simply could not have been the Star.
Second, unlike the Star seen by the Magi, Halley’s Comet, although it did appear in the east, did not at any stage rise heliacally (namely, after being invisible because of proximity to the Sun) in 12 BC.
Third, this hypothesis fails to offer a credible explanation for the behavior of the Magi. One must assume that the Magi and their predecessors had seen a number of comets, including bright ones like Halley’s, come and go without undertaking major treks in search of a newborn King of the Jews. Why, then, would they have responded any differently in 12 BC? The Chinese were deeply impacted by this apparition of Halley’s, but they had a completely different way of reading the heavens than the Babylonians and Greeks. What might have caused the Magi to think that a new king had been born and that he was Jewish and divine? An examination of Halley’s behavior in 12 BC on astronomical software fails to shed any light on the issue.
Fourth, Halley’s Comet did not remain visible for anywhere near as long as the Star of Bethlehem. Halley’s 56 days do not compare well with the Star’s minimum apparition of one year.
Fifth, the chronology of the Magi’s journey set out by Kokkinos allows less than 3 weeks (from August 26, when the comet attained to naked-eye visibility, to mid-September) for the Magi to travel to Judea. Even if they had traveled an average distance of 20 (indeed 28!) miles per day, they would not have completed the journey from Babylon that quickly.
Sixth, at no stage did Halley’s Comet during its 12 BC apparition ever appear in the south. It first appeared in the east before slowly moving to the north and then to the west, at which point it disappeared from the sky. This is in contrast to the Bethlehem Star, which was seen in the southern sky, when it led the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
It is clear that the Halley’s Comet hypothesis is fundamentally flawed and untenable. It is puzzling that, of the entire comet population, so many scholars discussing the Star of Bethlehem have zeroed in on it.17 As impressively bright as it has been over recent millennia, Halley’s is scarcely the only great comet in history. Indeed, long-period comets, like the Great Comets of 1680, 1843, 1880, 1882, 1910, 1996, and 1997, are often even more stunning than Halley’s (particularly in its 12 BC apparition)—appearing brighter, sporting larger comas and/or greater tails, and remaining visible for longer.
The Chinese Comet of 5 BC Theory Evaluated
In an excellent contribution to the Star of Bethlehem debate, Professor Sir Colin Humphreys has offered an alternative cometary theory.18 He points out that, according to the Chinese astronomical records, there was a hui-hsing in the constellation Capricornus that remained visible for just over 70 days, beginning in March/April of the year 5 BC.19 The record is as follows:
Second year of the Ch’ien-p’ing reign period of Emperor Ai of the Han dynasty, second month [March 10–April 7, 5 BC], a hui-hsing appeared at Ch’ien-niu for over 70 days.20
On the understanding that the hui-hsing refers to “a broom star comet” (as noted in chapter 4), Humphreys suggests that this comet, which falls within the plausible time frame for the birth of Jesus and was present long enough to permit the Magi to travel to Judea, played the part of the Star of Bethlehem.21 Sir Colin takes the view that what brought the Magi west was the combination of the hui-hsing in 5 BC, the planetary massing in 6 BC, and the triple conjunction of 7 BC.22 He suggests that the triple conjunction and planetary massing convinced the Magi that the birth of the mighty messianic King of Israel would take place in the near future. “The scene was set: their expectations were aroused for a third sign which would indicate that the birth of the king was imminent.”23 The third sign was the comet in 5 BC, which told them that the King had now been born.24 In Humphreys’s view, it was this final celestial wonder, the comet, that was the Star seen twice by the Magi.25
Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with this hypothesis.
First, while Matthew 2:2 reports that it was what the Star did in connection with its heliacal rising that prompted the Magi to travel to Judea, we have no reason to believe that the comet observed by the Chinese in Capricornus ever heliacally rose. Humphreys argues that what the 5 BC comet did to impress the Magi, it did at the beginning of its apparition, coinciding with the period shortly after perihelion, when the comet would have been at its most impressive.26 However, although it is true that this comet was at this time in the eastern (technically, southeastern) sky in the hours before dawn, it was way too far from the Sun to have been regarded as heliacally rising. The comet became visible in Capricornus in March/April, but the stars of Capricornus had heliacally risen more than a month beforehand.
Second, the fact that the comet of 5 BC remained observable for just over 70 days constitutes a major problem, for Herod’s order that one-year-old infants be slain was based on the fact that the Star had first appeared at least a year beforehand (vv. 7, 16). Of course, Humphreys, although he insists that the birth of Jesus coincided with the comet’s appearance, attempts to get around this problem by postulating that, when the Magi told Herod that they had first seen the Star “two years ago,” they were referring to the non-cometary phenomena.27 However, this simply does not work. After all, Herod asks the Magi not when the first of a number of signs occurred, but “when the star had appeared” (v. 7). And we must assume that the Magi answered his question straightforwardly, speaking of the first appearance of the very same Star that they had reported seeing rise in verse 2. It should also be noted that, according to verse 2, what underlay the Magi’s journey to Judea was one thing: their observation of a “star” that they interpreted to be the Jewish Messiah’s. Had the apparition of the Star alone been inadequate to get them journeying westward, then we would have expected the Magi to speak of “signs” rather than the appearance of a “star.”
Third, there was obviously something extraordinary about the Star of Bethlehem that prompted the Magi to conclude at the time that it was signaling the Messiah’s birth, and to be so sure of this that they traveled 550 miles to Jerusalem in search of the newborn King. However, Humphreys’s hypothesis is unable to offer any explanation of why the comet itself was regarded as remarkable or interpreted in messianic terms. One of the few things we know about the Chinese hui-hsing is that it appeared in Capricornus, an area of sky with no obvious connection to the Jewish people.
Fourth, there is no evidence that this comet appeared in the western or southern evening sky. Indeed there is reason to wonder if the comet ever left Capricornus. As David H. Clark, John H. Parkinson, and F. Richard Stephenson highlight, a hui-hsing in the Chinese records is usually a tailed comet and, when reference is made to one, there is generally some mention of the object’s movement.28 These scholars point out that the Chinese record of the 12 BC apparition of Halley’s Comet was probably made by the same astronomers who made the 5 BC record.29 While the Chinese detailed the 12 BC comet’s movements over 150 degrees through more than 10 asterisms, they make no mention of any motion with respect to the 5 BC entity.30
It is, however, possible that this Chinese record is incomplete and that the comet was only in Capricornus at the point when it was first discovered.31 Certainly it is unfair to compare this comet record to that of Halley’s Comet in 12 BC, which was perceived to be of extraordinary astrological significance and therefore was included in unusual detail in the Han shu.
Nevertheless, there are many examples from 110 BC to AD 100 that detail movement across the constellations.32 And there are examples where the comet’s location in the sky is omitted33 or is put in more general terms.34 Quite simply, it was not normal during this period for the Chinese to specify only the initial location of the comet.
It is therefore not at all certain that the hui-hsing in 5 BC moved beyond the constellation of Capricornus during the 70+ days of its apparition.35 Relative celestial stability would be unusual for a broom star cometary apparition, but it is possi
ble when a formerly dormant comet experiences a major outburst due to a fragmentation or splitting event a few weeks after perihelion, when a tail is capable of becoming visible from Earth and its movement within the starry sky might be constrained to one small region of the sky. Had such an outburst happened farther away, it probably would have been described as a po, the Chinese term for a tailless comet (a bushy star comet).36 When Comet Holmes, located far from Earth and the Sun, had its magnificent 2007 outburst (fig. 5.17), it remained visible to the naked eye for more than 3 months.
Of course, if the 5 BC comet did not move from Capricornus and hence the morning sky, that would disqualify it from being the Bethlehem Star. After all, the Star of Bethlehem clearly migrated across a broad swath of the starry heavens from the eastern morning sky to the southern evening sky in the space of only a few months. A comet confined to Capricornus would not have been able to guide the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem or to stand over a particular house in Bethlehem.
Even if we were to assume that the Chinese record is simply indicating that the comet began its apparition in Capricornus before moving on from there, we have no basis for thinking that it made its way to the southern evening sky, acted in such a way as to guide the Magi toward Bethlehem, or “stood over” one particular house. The Chinese record furnishes very little information about the comet in question. In light of the great ambiguity, we should be very cautious about jumping to the conclusion that this comet was the Bethlehem Star. The mere fact that we have a record of a comet in 6–5 BC does not constitute a firm foundation for identification.