The Star of Bethlehem

A linguist's angle on the Star of Bethlehem

“…A satisfactory answer to the question of what was the Star of Bethlehem may be impossible, as admitted, in effect, by Hughes (1976), and as claimed by Cullen (1979). For recent and not so recent accounts of the various astronomical theories of the Star, see also Lundmark (1953; on the essential background to which see Lundmark 1938), Morrison Planetarium (1954), Montefiore (1960, 1962), Finegan (1964), Clark et al (1977), Armstrong (1978), Seymour and Seymour (1978), Arnheim (1984), Sinnott (1986), Doig (1990), Martin (1996), Crudele (2002) and Tipler (2005).…”

“…The first thing to note is that in Matthew's account of the event the word star is never qualified in any way, and certainly not called extraordinary. That is, it is not called a specially bright star, a new star, a comet, or anything else implying a rare abnormality such as an occultation or planetary massing (Burney 1903, Hughes 1976). Others have depended on ignoring the coyness of Matthew's description, in the interests of other ideas; for example, Lundmark (1953) and Clark et al (1977) (interested in novae), and Montefiore (1960) (interested in comets, following Origen Contra Celsum i 32).…”

“…There are, of course, competing theories of where the astrologers came from, two popular ones involving northern Syria and Mesopotamia. Hughes (1976) directs attention to Babylonia, using a deft hop in his argument from Sippar as the place where the cuneiform tablet predicting the triple conjunction of 7 BC was found to Sippar as the probable starting‐place for the pilgrimage of the Magi.…”

“…But camels cannot fly – the reputed pace of a laden camel is 2 mph, not exactly life in the fast lane. Pritchard (1863) says the journey would have taken seven months, while Hughes (1976) believes the trip would have taken four months to prepare and execute. At 25 miles a day, and under the best possible assumptions, the journey would have taken about 40 days, but the best possible assumptions are certainly unrealistic.…”

The Star of Christ in the Light of Astronomy

“…In popular writing and shows, scholarly detail has a tendency to wither, especially when researched by nonexperts, and many errors began here that are often repeated in Christmas shows (Mosley 1981). On the other hand, the scientific, peer‐reviewed literature was bereft of such speculations for nearly a century until David Hughes’s paper in 1976, 3 leaving the conversation almost entirely in a nonacademic realm.…”