The Birth and Death of Jesus Christ

For some time there has been considerable speculation as to the identity of the Star of Bethlehem, visible over Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth. Patrick Moore, in Astronomy Now in 1990, claimed that it was unrelated to any known astronomical phenomenon [viz. historical records]. Credance to this line of arguement seems to have been given by the Star only appearing in St Matthew's Gospel. Halley's Comet was ruled out, although, in the Letters to the Editor section of the Daily Telegraph, dated 24 December, 1998, he admitted that


"There are vague Chinese reports of comets at this time, but nothing definite."
In the Telegraph Magazine of 19 December 1998 the cover story was Mick Brown's article 'The Heavenly Debate'. Brown said that between 12 BC and 4 BC the Chinese recorded three comets, and the first has since been identified as Halley's Comet. Colin Humphreys, a Cambridge professor, favoured 5 BC, the second comet recorded by the Chinese, for Christ's birth. He put the date somewhere "between March 9 and May 4." Incidentally, the 1880 Oxford University Press edition of the King James Bible agrees with him! Comet Bradfield C/1975 V2 made a spectacular appearance at this time, its tail seemingly endless.


Humphreys, preferred the comet theory as they can be viewed for long periods. For example, Brown said Halley's comet "appeared for 56 days" in 12 BC. Comets can also seem to be slow-moving or apparently motionless. I remember looking night after night in 1997 at Hale-Bopp in the north-western sky.


St Matthew said the Star of Bethlehem "stood over where the young child was" [Matthew 1, v. 9].


In 1990 Moore also dismissed possible conjunctions between Jupiter and Venus. He said that the Three Magi, being "skilled star-gazers", would "certainly have recognised" such a phenomenon. Eight years later he added


"If the Wise Men could be deceived by, say, Venus or Jupiter, they would hardly be very wise."
However, his letter does refer to a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC. Johannes Kepler [1571-1630], the famous German astronomer and natural philosopher, saw a conjunction of these planets in Pisces in 1603, and found three had occured in 7 BC. Following astronomical calculations he concluded that, in the words of Brown, "Christ had been conceived in 7 BC and born in 6 BC."


Brown's article gives the conjunction dates as 27 May, 6 October and 1 December, though St Matthew gave no dates. For Hughes and Seymour they were the most feasible explanation. David Hughes, planetary scientiest and author of The Star of Bethlehem Mystery, and Percy Seymour, astronomer and author of The Birth of Christ, argued for a date of 15 September for Christ's birth. According to Hughes, the 6 October conjunction was seen by the Magi as they


"journeyed from their meeting with Herod in Jerusalem to Bethlehem. By this time Jesus had been born."
Extra weight to their theory appeared to have been leant by the Sun being in Virgo, i.e. the Son of God in the Virgin Mary. Hughes could see that the strongest argument against the conjunction idea was that "at their closest point, Jupiter would have been separated". But did this invalidate St Matthew's single star? He claimed not, as this would be imposing "an astronomical, rather than an astrological meaning to the event." Furthermore, he said that the two planets had royal significance with Jupiter being "the planet of kingship" and Saturn "the planet of the Jews". Above Jesus' head at His Crucifixion, in "Hebrew, Greek and Latin" [ St John 20, v. 20], was a plaque declaring Him to be The King of the Jews. Of the four Gospel's only St John's has Pontius Pilate, the Governor of Judea, writing and placing the sign himself. His action earned him the priests' condemnation.


Patrick Moore, though, in 1990 and 1998 favoured a meteor or meteors as the Star of Bethlehem. He said that it, or they, had to be "something very brilliant, seen only by the Wise Men, unusual and quick-moving."


However, I agree with Humphreys that it was a comet, and they can move very quickly indeed! I decided to use the astronomy software RedShift 3 to see whether or not there were any comets visible in the area on 15 September 7 BC. The most likely candidate, I discovered, was the comet Blanpain D/1819 W1. Blanpain was seen at 6:45 am in the eastern sky. Two other comets were also in the skies at this time, Bradfield and Hartley 2, though both fainter than Blanpain. Hartley 2 was not bright enough to be visible in daylight, but Bradfield just may've been, as the length of its tail exceeded Blanpain's.


The traditional date for Christ's birth is 25 December 0 BC/AD, first assigned by a Roman monk called Dionysius Exiguous [Dennis the Little in English] in 525 AD. Unfortunately, when Dennis compiled a new calendar he miscalculated the reigns of Roman emperors, thereby placing the event in the wrong year. About 5 years or so too late in fact! Assuming he had been correct in his assumption, Christ would've been born in 1 BC or 1 AD as the concept of zero didn't exist in the West at the time. Incidentally, RedShift3 doesn't recognise the year 0. Either those who designed RedShift3 thought it never happened, or the programming couldn't accommodate the concept. Arabic numerals [0-9] were first introduced during the 12th century Crusades. In the Ancient World dating was usually reckoned from the first day of a new ruler's reign. Checking Redshift3, I discovered nothing portentious happened on the traditional day, anyway. Whatever, the date of His birth, it is clear that the year 2000 is a complete sham!