I think every astronomical attempt to explain the star fails, for reasons like the ones I explained here. (The post I just linked also addresses what evidence we have for the star, so anybody interested in that subject may want to read the post as well.) Here's Ross' two-sentence dismissal of the view that the star was a supernatural entity, which is my position:
There are those who argue that the star was of a supernatural origin, such as an angel or God’s Shekinah glory. The text, however, does not seem to support this conclusion.
Not much to interact with there. In his previous article from more than a decade ago, which he links in his more recent article, here's what he writes on the supernatural view:
More imaginative suggestions include a flying saucer, an angel, and the Shekinah glory (the light or radiance of God occasionally made visible to humans).
Although we see aster in Revelation 1 as the symbol for a messenger, or angel, nothing in the Matthew 2 passage indicates a symbolic or metaphoric usage. Likewise, though New Testament references to Shekinah can be found (Matthew 17:1–3; Luke 2:9, Revelation 1:12–16), none is associated with the word aster. The “glory of the Lord” mentioned in Luke 2:9 refers to the radiance that surrounded the shepherds outside of Bethlehem, apparently seen by no one other than the shepherds. Thus, it seems reasonable to propose that the aster followed by the magi refers to an astronomical object or phenomenon.
The star wouldn't have to be identified as an angel or the Shekinah in order to be a supernatural entity.
As I argue in my article linked above, a supernatural explanation of the star makes more sense than an astronomical explanation for multiple reasons. Ross' recent article attempts to address one of the reasons I've cited:
This stellar event is recorded nowhere else in ancient literature—so it must have been just dramatic enough to catch the attention of the watchful Magi, but too subtle to warrant the notice of other astronomers and astrologers of that time.
A better explanation for why only one group of magi is referred to as having seen the star, an explanation that's more consistent with the rest of the passage, is that the star was some sort of supernatural object. Ross has to make the recurring nova so subtle that nobody else noticed it, then he has to have it leading the magi to a location smaller than the city of Bethlehem. In his older article, he suggests that "the star may have become clearly visible as the wise men approached Bethlehem and then dimmed when they neared the house", but the text is more naturally taken as a reference to an appearing and disappearing and moving and stopping entity, not something growing brighter or dimmer. A supernatural entity closer to the earth's surface would be a better candidate for those characteristics. And the supernatural view offers a better explanation for why Herod is so focused on getting information from the magi. Herod seems to expect neither the original appearance of the star nor any later appearance(s) to be noticed by other individuals (contrary to his approach to the issue of the Messiah's birthplace, which involved consulting the religious leaders in Jerusalem). Herod's association of the star with the magi and not with other people is better explained if it was a supernatural object giving guidance to the magi and only visible to other individuals if they happened to be nearby.
It's not as though we have to find an astronomical explanation for the star, so that we should go with whichever astronomical view seems to best align with the text. Rather, we also have the option of a supernatural explanation. And the supernatural view aligns better with the text and context. For more of an explanation of why the supernatural view makes the most sense, see my article linked above and the rest of the series in which that article appears.
I find it odd that Christians would think that natural evidence would necessarily result in discovery of a supernatural thing. Taking the biblical revelation of the star of Bethlehem for what it says, I don't see any way this could be anything other than a supernatural event.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think there is strong evidence, although not certain revelation, that the magi were the intellectual progeny of Daniel and may have been acting on some information that he left their academy a few hundred years prior. It should have served as a foreshadowing to the Jews that messianic salvation is not for the Jews only. A mere astrological event could have been easily dismissed as the sign they were looking for.
What else can one expect form a compromised old-earther (tautology) than an attempt to eisegete a natural phenomenon into an obvious account of a supernatural occurrence? This has nothing to do with the word aster or the behavior of novas, but rather a presupposition of scientism.
ReplyDelete