The Great Christ Comet (28 page)

Countering Two Final Objections

Before we turn to consider those questions in the next chapter, we must respond to two final objections to the comet hypothesis.

“No Extant Record of a Matching Comet”

The first objection was raised by R. T. France: “Comets have long been held to herald the arrival of important figures on the world stage, and a comet visible in the western sky might well explain the journey of the magi, but unfortunately astronomers have not been able to identify a comet which would have been visible at about the right historical date.”
92
Simo Parpola also argues against the comet view by stating that, aside from Halley's Comet in 12 BC, “No other suitable observations of comets are known from this period.”
93

However, as we have already shown, we lack anything like a comprehensive set of comet records from the period. Accepting that per century on average there are something like 87 comets, it is clear that the memory of over two-thirds of the comets from the period 50 BC to AD 50 has been lost to history. Moreover, the comets that we do know about were not recorded because they were astro
nomically impressive but because they occurred at auspicious moments and/or served to advance the agenda of a variety of ancient writers/historians. Therefore we have every reason to believe that many great cometary apparitions have long been forgotten.

In the case of the Greco-Roman comet data, we are dependent on a selection of scattered references to comets drawn from different writings.
94

As for the Far Eastern records, although some writers assume that the surviving Chinese records from the Former Han period are so comprehensive that a cometary Star of Bethlehem would certainly have been among them,
95
this is simply not true (see appendix 1). It is widely accepted by scholars in the field that most records were lost prior to the composition of the
Han shu
, and that the historians were very selective in those that they elected to integrate into their narrative, making their choices based on astrological and ideological considerations.

It should also be appreciated that Matthew is claiming to preserve observations of the Christ Star by astronomers who in all probability come from Bab­ylon—specifically concerning the Star's first appearance and heliacal rising. Effectively, then, in Matthew 2 we have indirect access to
Bab­ylo­nian
records of the Christ Comet. Matthew probably implies that the Magi had a written record regarding the comet's apparition from which they were able to draw in order to inform Herod regarding the date of the first appearance of the comet. Moreover, the reaction of Herod and the people of Jerusalem to the Magi's enquiry strongly implies that they themselves had been awed by the sight of the comet but had not been interpreting it messianically. Therefore there is good reason to believe that both the Bab­ylo­nians and the Judeans had observed the comet.

In conclusion, the objection to the comet hypothesis based on its absence from the extant astronomical records should be firmly rejected. If we had comprehensive astronomical records, France and Parpola might have had a point. However, the records that we have are patchy at best.

“Comets Were Not Considered ‘Stars'”

The second of the two final objections to the comet hypothesis is that a comet is not, strictly speaking, a star. For example, Judith Weingarten insists that Matthew's choice of “star” (
ast
ē
r
) could not refer to a comet because the ancients knew their comets from their stars.
96
Likewise Raymond Brown presents as the first argument against the comet view that “a comet is not a star.”
97
Then, later, he writes, “Matt[hew] says that the magi saw the star (not planets, not a comet) of the King of the Jews at its rising (or in the East).”
98

However, to call comets “stars” is hardly a matter of confusing comets and stars! The Mesopotamians as far back as the first half of
the first millennium BC could refer to comets as “stars.”
99
In the rest of the ancient world as well, comets were often called “stars,” as the following examples demonstrate.

Caesar Augustus, as cited by Pliny the Elder,
100
refers to the comet of 44 BC as “a hairy star.”
101
Pliny himself regularly calls comets “stars.”
102
For example, concerning comets, he asserts that “Some persons suppose that these stars are permanent.”
103
And again, “stars are suddenly formed in the heavens themselves; of these there are various kinds. The Greeks name these stars ‘comets'; we name them Crinitiae [long-haired stars], as if shaggy with bloody locks, and surrounded with bristles like hair.”
104
In a passage we have already had cause to cite, Pliny states concerning the comet of 44 BC that “The common people supposed the star to indicate that the soul of Caesar was admitted among the immortal gods.”
105
In that same context Pliny also writes that a comet was generally regarded as a “terrifying star.”
106

Seneca quotes Artemidorus as saying that comets are “new stars.”
107
Seneca himself makes reference to cometary apparitions as “the appearance of such stars.”
108

Cassius Dio calls them “comet stars.”
109
He also speaks of the comet of 44 BC as “the star called comet.”
110

Josephus mentions “a star, resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and/namely a comet that continued for an entire year.”
111

Similarly, Origen clearly regards “comets” as a subset of “stars” and assumes that this was the common understanding.
112
He refers to different types of comets as “such stars.” He also interprets Balaam's “star” in Numbers 24:17 as a comet. On that note, Numbers 24:17 itself is strong evidence that, within the Biblical tradition, a comet (“scepter”) could be reckoned a “star.”

It is clear, then, that the ancients frequently referred to comets as “stars.” This is true even where there was a clear appreciation that comets were fundamentally different from fixed stars.
113

Conclusion

In this chapter I have made a case for regarding the Star seen by the Magi in the east and then in Bethlehem as a narrowly inclined, retrograde, long-period comet that, around the time of its close perihelion, rose heliacally and thereafter crossed the Sun-Earth line to be on the western and eventually the southern side of Earth. Not only are the alternative theories fundamentally flawed (as we showed in
chapter 4
), but the comet hypothesis fits perfectly with the entire narrative of Matthew. The so-called Bethlehem Star was undoubtedly a “comet star.”

Having concluded that the Star seen by
the Magi was a comet, we shall in the following chapter turn to the task of identifying the celestial scene that greeted the Magi's eyes in the eastern sky and caused them to make their way to Judea. How did the comet reveal so much information to the Magi, namely, that someone had just been born, that he was divine in nature and hence worthy of worship, and that this person was the King of the Jews?

7

“Yon Virgin Mother and Child”

The Celestial Wonder

Introduction

In the previous chapter I argued that the Star of Bethlehem could only have been a comet. Indeed I suggested that only an intrinsically bright, very large, narrowly inclined, retrograde, long-period comet could have done what Matthew recounts concerning the Bethlehem Star.

However, one key question remains: what in particular did the comet do to convince the Magi that, if they embarked on a long journey westward to Judea, they would be able to find a newborn king? We know from Matthew 2:2 that the part of the cometary apparition that played the decisive role in prompting the Magi to go to Judea related to the comet's heliacal rising. Needless to say, however, the mere presence of a comet appearing low in the eastern predawn sky would hardly have seemed of earthshaking significance to seasoned stargazers. Something extraordinary must have happened in connection with the comet's heliacal rising, something perceived by the Magi to be utterly astonishing and to communicate definitively that the divine Messiah was born at that time.
1

We have already highlighted that no astronomical entity's heliacal rising is more surprising and dramatic than that of a bright comet that has just made a very close pass by the Sun and is reemerging over the eastern horizon in advance of the Sun, or appearing on the western horizon, in the wake of the Sun's setting. At that time (around perihelion) comets are at their most active, at the peak of their brightness, and at their most unpredictable. They may become visible during the daytime, and, in rare cases, shine with a brilliance surpassing that of the full Moon. Coma and tail growth go into overdrive in outer space and often within the dome of the sky.

In the case of the Christ Comet, there was unquestionably something remarkable about the brightness, size, shape, location, and/or movement of the comet at the time when it heliacally rose. But what? How did it spell out for the Magi that an important royal personage had been born, and persuade them to
undertake their 550-mile pilgrimage to pay homage to him?

This is an interesting question, the more so because the Christ Comet was no run-of-the-mill comet. The Magi's early and long observation of the Star indicates that the object was exceptional in intrinsic brightness and size, since only bright and large comets are capable of becoming and remaining visible to the naked eye when they are so far away. Of all the comets that have been detected in the modern era, the only ones that would compare to the Christ Comet in these respects are Sarabat's Comet of 1729,
2
Hale-Bopp,
3
and perhaps the Great Comet of 1811.
4
However, these comets did not venture close to the Sun or to Earth. Therefore, if the Christ Comet did indeed make a close pass by the Sun (within Mercury's orbit) and also by Earth, it puts us in unfamiliar, indeed to some extent theoretical, territory. Thankfully, however, we are not completely in the dark. Based on what we know about the behavior of Hale-Bopp and that of smaller comets that have made close approaches to the Sun and Earth, we have a good idea as to what could have happened around the time of the Christ Comet's perihelion. Almost certainly, it would have become as bright as the full Moon, its coma (head) would have become greatly enlarged, and its tail would have grown very long. But how bright, how large, and how long? We shall seek to shed some important light on these issues in this and subsequent chapters.

One important clue as to the form of the Christ Comet can be detected in what the Magi say to the people of Jerusalem, as reported in Matthew 2:2: “we saw his star at its rising.” We have already observed that the Magi here are probably alluding to Balaam's oracle concerning the cometary scepter-star that would “rise” (Num. 24:17), implicitly claiming that they have witnessed a literal fulfillment of this prophecy. The most natural conclusion to draw from this is that around the time of its heliacal rising the comet as a whole looked like a scepter, that is, a long straight rod (see
fig. 7.1
). This would have been a magnificent and memorable phenomenon. In recent centuries only a select number of comets (most notably, the great comets of 1680 and 1843) have around the time of their heliacal rising had a length and general shape that would permit them to pass for a scepter.

As to the question of the comet's location as it heliacally rose, in the preceding chapter we proposed that the Christ Comet was narrowly inclined to the ecliptic plane and probably remained within the zodiacal band throughout its apparition. That obviously raises the tantalizing question: in which zodiacal constellation or sign did the comet heliacally rise? In light of that question, it is helpful to list the zodiacal constellations:

Aries (the ram)

Taurus (the bull)

Gemini (the twins)

Cancer (the crab)

Leo (the lion)

Virgo (the virgin)

Libra (the scales)

Scorpius (the scorpion)

Ophiuchus (the serpent-bearer)

Sagittarius (the archer)

Capricornus (the goat)

Aquarius (the water-bearer)

Pisces (the fishes)

The names of the zodiacal
signs
(the 30-degree segments into which the zodiacal band was divided by the Bab­ylo­nians around the middle of the first millennium BC) are identical except for the exclusion of Ophiuchus. So in which constellation or sign was the comet when it rose over the eastern horizon? The answer to this question is very important, for there can be little doubt that at least part of the reason that the Christ Comet's behavior at the time of its heliacal rising was regarded as meaningful and significant was the celestial context in which it occurred.
5

In this chapter I propose that the story of what the Star did in connection with its heliacal rising is actually recorded in some detail in the New Testament, specifically in Revelation 12:1–5. That this text is the key to unlocking the mystery of what the Star did to mark the Messiah's birth has gone unappreciated for long enough.

Before we turn to Revelation 12, it is important to recognize that we are well positioned to evaluate the credentials of any specific proposals regarding what the Christ Comet did, because we have extrapolated from Matthew significant data about the comet—specifically concerning its profile (large, intrinsically bright, long-tailed), orbit (retrograde, long period, narrow inclination, small perihelion distance), and behavior (heliacally rising around perihelion time and then passing between Earth and the Sun
)
. Only if what Revelation 12:1–5 records is fully consistent with Matthew 2:1–18 should it be accepted as holding the key to unlocking the mystery of the Bethlehem Star.

Revelation 12:1–5

In Revelation 12:1–5 we read of a woman in heaven who is pregnant and brings forth a special child:

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the Sun, with the Moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And she was pregnant; and she was crying out because of labor pains and the agony of giving
birth. . . . And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with an iron scepter, but her child was snatched away to God and to his throne . . . (Rev. 12:1–2, 4b–5).
6

Messiah's Birth

It seems clear that what is in view here is the story of the birth of the Messiah. Within Revelation 12–14, which is in many ways the center of the book of Revelation, there are several indications that this woman's male child is the Messiah Jesus. The twelve stars in the mother's crown (v. 1) reveal that the son is born to Israel, with its twelve tribes. Revelation 12:5b, in speaking of the woman's son being taken to God's throne, strongly alludes to the ascension of Jesus. Verse 17 explicitly mentions Jesus, and verses 10–11 refer to him as “Christ” and “the Lamb.” Moreover, the strong allusion in verse 5a (“one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”; ESV) to Psalm 2:7b–9 (“You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel”) suggests that Jesus is in view, for Revelation 19:15 (“he will rule them with a rod of iron”) employs the same language from the same psalm to refer to the imposition of Jesus's sovereign authority over the nations at the end of the age. Therefore in Revelation 12:1–5 the author, John, begins the narrative of the great conflict between the Messiah and the dragon, Satan, by telling the story of the nativity of Jesus the Messiah.

The Celestial Play

What is so remarkable about Revelation 12:1–5a, of course, is that the narrative of Jesus's birth is told in what are clearly celestial terms. The wonder is explicitly located “in heaven” and involves the heavenly entities of the Sun, Moon, and stars, as well as a great celestial serpentine dragon who throws the stars to earth with its tail, and a stellar woman. Indeed everything in verses 1–5 takes place “in heaven” (vv. 1, 3; cf. v. 4), with the shift to the earth occurring only in verse 6.

The overwhelmingly celestial nature of verses 1–5 obviously begs the question of why. Why does John offer his readers an astronomical version of Jesus's birth narrative? As much as scholars of the Apocalypse have noticed how peculiar the celestial framing of these verses is, they have never been able to explain it. Nor have they been able to shed light on why verses 1 and 3 specify that the scenes of the drama recounted in verses 1–5 constitute “signs” (“a great sign appeared . . . another sign appeared”).

Quite simply, the only plausible explanation of the celestial and portentous nature of the messianic birth scene in Revelation 12:1–5 is that John is consciously recalling the heavenly wonder that attended Jesus's nativity. In other words, what we read in these verses is an account of the marvel that coincided with the Messiah's birth and that prompted the Magi to travel to Judea to worship the newborn King of the Jews.
7
This astronomical marvel establishes the narrative framework for the whole chapter of which it is a part.

Accordingly, what we find in these verses is the key to unlocking the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem.

The Celestial Woman Virgo

The Greek word translated “sign” (
s
ē
meion
) in verse 1 may also mean “constellation,”
8
as a number of scholars have pointed out.
9
In this context a double meaning seems very likely—the “sign” is an empirical phenomenon disclosing some theological truth and it also concerns a stellar constellation.
10

It seems clear who the heavenly woman crowned with twelve stars is. Since the Sun and Moon traverse the heavens along the ecliptic, the fact that they are here respectively described as clothing the woman and as being under her feet makes it clear that the female is positioned along the ecliptic and is therefore one of the zodiacal constellation figures. The only zodiacal female is Virgo the Virgin, and hence it is unquestionably she who is in view here.
11
Just as Virgo was often portrayed with wings, so the woman in John's vision is given wings in verse 14. Moreover, just as Virgo was typically envisioned by the ancients as a virgin of childbearing age and indeed often as a mother, so also the celestial woman in Revelation 12 is a young maiden who gives birth to a child. In addition, the fact that the serpentine dragon is said to have “stood before” the woman (v. 4b) supports this identification. As we will see below, the multiheaded serpentine dragon is the constellation figure Hydra, which is located immediately to the south of Virgo and rises in the eastern sky on her left side (on the right side, from an observer's perspective). We concur with the claim of Stephen Benko regarding the woman of Revelation 12: “Any Greek or Roman reading such a description would have thought of the constellation Virgo (
parthenos
, virgin), . . . who was represented as a woman holding an ear of corn and having wings.”
12

Virgo was the largest zodiacal constellation and the third largest of all the constellations after Argo Navis and Hydra. The constellation consists mostly of rather faint stars spread over a wide area. The brightest star is Spica, a stunning first-magnitude star halfway down the constellation, close to the ecliptic. Spica is actually in the top twenty of the brightest stars of the night sky. The next brightest stars in the constellation are the third-magnitude Porrima (
γ
), Vindemiatrix (
ε
), and Auva (
δ
), and the fourth-magnitude Zavijava (
β
). (Modern readers who wish to get a good view of Virgo are advised to look at it shortly after dark in April–June.)