Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    
    Since it's been said that the Three Wise Men were astrologers,
    perhaps it was a planetary configuration of which they were very
    aware and had been awaiting.
    
    Carole
    

    Coupla points:
    
    Nowhere in Scripture did it say there wwere _three_ Wise Men; they
    were referred to as "magi," which fits the astrological bill better.
    
    It probably wasn't anything like a comet (too well known) or nova
    (no equivalent history recorded in other cultures like the Chinese).
    
    Suspect it was an unusual cionfluence of planets, which _would_
    be of Significance to an astrologer, but would be virtually unnoticed
    by the average person of the time.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  Herod died in 4 B.C.; therefore Jesus coulkdn't have been
    born after then.  There was an interesting confluence of planets
    (my mind is hazy on which ones) in the spring of that year.  Jupiter
    and Mars, I believe were two of them, but I can't place the third
    ...
    
    

RE: .2
        
    I'm doing this from somewhat rusty memories, so don't trust the
    precise details too much.
    
    The Magi were an ethnic group (semitic?) who had the audacity to
    occupy some territory which was desired by the empire which later
    became the Persian Empire.  This was a few hundred BC.
    
    Among their other cultural heritages was a religion which emphasized
    prognostication, magical rituals, and (as was common in the Middle
    East at that time) a literate priesthood.  The Magi must have put
    up quite a fight because they were not assimilated, as was the usual
    (though not universal) custom of the time, but were instead made
    second class citizens, with strong attempts being made to suppress
    their culture completely.
    
    The priesthood, however, was found to be rather useful.  Their
    education and their knowledge of the unseen world and the future
    was valued by the new rulers.  The priests became a hereditary
    "caste" of advisors to the nobility, merchant class, and (the least
    successful) the populace at large (i.e., some became street-corner
    fortune tellers).
    
    The word "magus" (singular of Magi) came to mean, in Old Persian,
    magician -- and of course the English word "magician" as well as
    "magic" comes from this source.
    
    Given the context, it is reasonable to suppose that three "Magi"
    on such a course, could reasonably be refered to as three "wise
    men" (Vizier -- a title from the Turkish Empire meaning roughly
    "court advisor" is sometimes translated this way).  To interpret
    three "Magi" as three "Kings" is completely inconsistent though
    -- a Magus could be the power behind the throne but could *never*
    sit on the throne himself.
    
    Of course the three Magi could have been much less highly placed
    individuals.  They might even have been simply itinerate, poorly
    educated "gypsies" (metaphorically) trading off on their peoples
    reputation in the Middle East (particularly in areas where they
    were a rarity), for knowledge of magic.  (This seems unlikely
    in any case, and you are very welcome to reject it on religious
    grounds -- I'm doing my best at straight literary/historical analysis,
    though I'm not in the least qualified).
    
    In any case, the Magi were unquestionably astrologers (or claimed
    to be) as the concept was then understood -- someone who understood
    or attempted to interpret heavenly portents of whatever kind.  That
    they subscribed to the system which has come down to us and been
    codified by (I think) Ptolemy and extended by others is open to
    question.
    
    				Topher

    
    In answer to .0, I believe that there is a consensus that it was
    the apparent convergence of three planets.  Some years ago a
    planetarium Christmas show that I attended showed the sky at that
    time and indicated that at 3? or 4? B.C. three of our brightest
    planets appeared to be arranged in a very tight triangle and this
    is what many astronomers accept as the "star in the east".  By the
    way, it was the Magi who were in the "east" when the star appeared
    to them.
    		Bill
    

>       "...By the way, it was the Magi who were in the "east"
>     when the star appeared to them."



       -- Does that mean to follow it they would have walked AWAY FROM, 
not towards, Jerusalem????    Hmmmmmm...    

    re .3:
    
    Topher, "Magus" is still used in some circles to mean "magician,"
    as the not-on-stage variety.
    
    The magi as a group were active around that time: Apollonius of
    Tyana visited them when he was an adult and before he visited the
    Brahmans of India of the time (not the current type).  After his
    visit, he said, according to Philostratus' biography, "They are
    very learned, but not in everything."
    
    Scripture doeasn't say there were three -- that's tradition.  
    
    	Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in
    	the days of Herod the king, behold, there came
    	wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
    	  Saying, Where is he who was born King of the
    	Jews?  For we have seen his star in the east,
    	and have come to worship him.
    
    	[Matt 2:1-2 KJV]
    
    	There could have been as few as two, as many as could conveniently
    fit into Herod's court.  Why three then?  Two reasons: three is
    a rather mystic number (e.g., the Trinity, the Wiccan Rule of Three,
    three points defining a plane, etc), and three gifts (gold,
    frankincense, and myrrh) are mentioned [one gift from each Magus?
    that's the implication].  Neither may have validity.
    
    Re .5:
    
    >	-- Does that mean to follow it they would have walked AWAY FROM,
    >not towards, Jerusalem????  Hmmmmmm...
    
    Not necessarily.  "I saw Jupiter and Mars in Maynard," (a true
    statement,by the way) either could mean the gods (or planets) were
    present in Maynard or that I was in Maynard when I saw them (the
    planets) in the sky.
    
    If the star were a planetary confluence, their "following" it would
    mean that they could predict approximately when the confluence would
    be its "tightest" and they kept moving until that time.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Also according to the story Jesus may have been up to two years
    old before Herod died.
    
    Mikie

    Re .7:
    
    Possibly not.  Matthew 2 says that Jesus and family went into Egypt
    after Herod's order was issued but before it could be acted upon
    (2:13-14), and "when Herod was dead" an angel indicated it would
    be okay to return (2:19-20).  However, the angel said, "... for
    they are dead which sought the young child's life."  That sounds
    like more than just Herod.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .4
    
    Unfortunately, there is no concensus.  This is a plausible and popular
    theory among astronomers and archeoastronomers, but there are many.
    
    There is little objective reason to believe that the event occurred
    *at all* (there is also no reason to suppose that it didn't, so
    I have absolutely no argument with those who accept it on religious
    grounds).
    
    To me, by far the most likely explanation, assuming the events are
    historical, is that some completely unspectacular astrological event
    occured.  To the magi, however, it had powerful symbolic content
    which they related to Hebrew prophecies -- and they acted accordingly.
    Both this theory and the "triple conjunction" theory interpret "star"
    as a common metaphorical usage (relating to older forms of astrology)
    meaning a (symbolically) significant configuration of astrological
    elements.
    
    				Topher

    Off on a slight tangent, the Star of Bethlehem has become the
    centerpiece and namesake of the "Order of the Eastern Star," a ladies'
    auxilliary to the Masons.  (Men can join, but the highest positions
    are held by women.  Men must be Masons to join; women must be the
    wife, widow, sister, daughter, or mother of a Mason.)
    
    They represent the star as a pentacle, with the points colored red,
    yellow, white, green, and blue.  Each point is associated with a
    Biblical heroine, who is in turn associated with one of five ceremonial
    positions in the order, and with other five-fold symbolisms.
    
    None of it is occult, but there are always people who are afraid
    that it is.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Velikovsky's theories of planetary origin are pure, unadulterated,
    first grade RUBBISH.
    
    /Bevin

    Re .11:
    
    >RE: .9
    >
    >If the atrological event was unspectacular, why would it have
    >been noted at all?
    
    I believe Topher meant "unspectacular" to the man-in-the-street.
    the lasty time I had my telescope out and pointed it southward,
    I indicated to my neighbor, "that's Saturn," pointing at a dot of
    light in the evening sky.
    
    "Oh?" he said.  "I thought it was a star."
    
    He was suitably impressed when he saw the rings, however.  Problem
    here is that something that might look "spectacular" to a specialist
    might niot provoke a stifled yaswn from a layman.
    
    On Velikovsky: I will say more gently than .12 that the orbital
    mechanics known to exist in the solar system are at high variance
    with his hypothesis.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .14:
    
    Accepted by "establishment scientists"???  I cannot think of an
    astronomer, for instance, who understands orbital mechanics who
    accepts that something cometary spewed from Jupiter that then went
    gallivanting around the Solar System causing the parting of the
    Red Sea, Manna falls, and the like, that would settle down into
    an orbit with the least eccentricity in the entire Solar System.
    Further, the mass of Venus is far from cometary, and the close passes
    to Earth that Velikovsky hypothecates would result in it losing
    a great deal of the very extensive atmosphere it possesses.
    Additionally, to be close enough for the electrostatic phenomenon
    necessary for the Red Sea parting would put it within at least the
    outer Roche Limit, creating totally catastrophic geophysical events
    that would have destroyed all life on Earth.
    
    Also (though I haven't read any Velikovsky for years) I seem to
    recall that he sometimes played fast and loose with terminology
    to make a point.  He claimed that there were "hydrocarbons" in the
    atmosphere of what he said eventually became Venus; and that some
    of this was transferred to Earth during a Close Encounter to become
    the carbohydrate-based "manna" of the Israelites as they wandered
    in the desert.  The transmorgification of "hydrocarbon" to
    "carbohydrate" might _sound_ plausible, but I'm surprised that a
    PhD biophysicist wouldn't have caught it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	Babylonian tablets containing astronomical records mention Venus
    many times, and this is long before Velikovsky said Venus came out
    of Jupiter as a comet and went into orbit around the Sun.
    
    	I admire Velikovsky for attempting to give some rational
    explanations to many events mentioned in the Christian Bible, and
    also for going along new theoretical routes, but that is as far
    as it goes - his concepts can be disproven easily by modern science
    and archaeology (as I have shown with one example above).
    
    	Now let's get back to discussing the Star of Bethlehem in this
    topic - or at least take the Velikovsky debate elsewhere (there
    is one in PYRITE::GEOLOGY Notes).  
    
    	A few issues back, SKY AND TELESCOPE Magazine has given new
    support to the theory that the "Star" was actually the very close
    conjunction of the planets Venus and Saturn in 2 B.C.. 
    
    	Larry
    

RE: .11
    
    > If the astrological event was unspectacular, why would it have
    > been noted at all?
    
    Steve has it -- I meant to the man-in-the street.  If (making
    something up) Jupiter crossed the meridian of Betelgeuse while Mars
    was in Virgo, and Venus was retrograde this might excite an ancient
    astrologer, who might relate it to something in prophetic literature;
    but no one else, even those who habitually look at the sky, would
    take much notice.  We couldn't even make judgements on the basis
    of modern astrology, since the Magi could have been using a very
    different system.
    
    About Velokovsky.  You are welcome to believe in his theories if
    you wish.  You should know, however, that his historical evidence
    is based on *very* selective reading, on otherwise arbitrary (and
    frequently unmentioned) rearranging of dates and other facts.  His
    physics and astronomy are at complete variance with what seems to
    be at least approximately true everywhere else.  If you wish to
    continue the discussion, why don't you start a seperate note?  This
    really doesn't belong in this one.
    
    				Topher 

In 1984, I wrote an analysis of the Star, based on the premise that it was
a natural event.  I don't believe that there is any necessity for it to
have been a miraculous occurrence.

The article is 256 lines long, and I have already placed it in the
LDP::ASTRONOMY Notesfile as Note 386.5.  Interested readers are directed
thereto.

- Dick

    Minor update:
    
    Some recent readings have brought an interesting sidelight to the
    Star conjectures.  It seems that the kind of astrology the Magi
    did involved nothing as detailed as daily personal horoscopes, but
    instead sky phenomena that they associated with royal houses and
    nations.  Thus, for "wise men" to ask about the arrival of a King
    of the Jews would be perfectly in keeping with their normal practices.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.