As part of my small effort to recognize if not exactly celebrate Christmas this year, I watched the Star of Bethlehem video by Rick Larson. I own it but couldn’t find it so I watched the one at You Tube. As often happens I end up with a feeling of… inconclusiveness, even doubt. In a way I’m convinced by it but if asked to explain it I don’t think I could. It all goves by very fast with little time to ponder each point, and it was only after watching it about three times plus reviewing short segments that I had some grasp of how it all fits together. However, I still had questions, even wrote an email to Larson who may not be able to answer me, and now I want to try to spell it all out to see if I can make it clearer.
The thing I think throws me the most is that he almost seems to want to avoid identifying the time of Christ's birth as shown by his own research. He finds what he says is the brightest star ever seen, on the very date all his study leads him to conclude was the birth of Christ, but without even pausing to note the exact date he rushes on to other interesting points in the story. This seems to me quite odd since the title of the film leads us to believe that the whole point was to identify that star on that date. I think he succeeded. I’m convfinced. I think he makes a great case for it and that he did show that there really was an actual brightest astronomical occurrence or “star” that appeared on the day of Christ’s birth exactly as we are told in the second chapter of the gospel of Matthew.
Since scripture doesn’t identify the date of His birth it’s not of major importance in itself but if the whole point of the study was to find the star it seems odd that he doesn’t even mention the date on which it occurred, which appears to have been a day in June of the year 2 BC based on his researches. The star he found was an extremely close conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Venus, the “father” and “mother” planets which is of course very appropriate for the occasion, and he claims that this conjunction was the brightest thing any of the Magi would have seen in their lifetimes. Since he considered the star to be independent evidence of Biblical truths, and in my opinion he succeeded in demonstrating that, it seems to me he should have been emphatic about the date and the claim that the star he found really was the brightest star ever seen. If it really was THE star that marked the birth of the Savior it has to be more than the brightest thing the Magi had seen in their lifetimes, it has to be the brightest thing in the sky anyone has ever seen, period.
In a recent interview on a Fox podcast I found at his website he admits that conjunctions between Jupiter and Venus occur from time to time, so that his claim is not that the conjunction itself is unique, but that this particular conjunction was the closest of them all and therefore the brightest. This needs more than a passing and vague reference. It took many viewings of the film for me to be able to pin down the doubts I kept having and this reason for them. I believe he made his case, I wish he’d made a bigger production of it so there would be no doubt he’d made it.
He’d been led to that date after some time of study and he doesn’t spell out all the steps that led him there, but it started with learning about Johannes Kepler’s attempts to find the star of Bethlehem. Kepler failed and Larson explains that as his having relied on a date for the death of Herod the Great given in the history of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. Herod ordered the killing of male babies up to the age of two when he heard of the birth of the “King of the Jews” as the Magi called Him, to eliminate competition for the throne of Israel, so he had to have still been alive at the time of Jesus’ birth. Josephus gives the date of his death as 4 BC so Kepler looked for a great star marking Christ’s birth in the years preceding that date.
But Larson found someone who showed that the date in Josephus was wrong, a printing or copying error. It turned out that all the copies of Josephus’ history printed before the year 1544 had 1 BC instead of 4 BC for Herod’s death. So that of course became the date Larson used for his investigation. (If you Google the date of Herod’s death you will find that the erroneous 4 BC is still used.)
So working from 1 BC as the latest year for Christ’s birth Larson used the astronomy program "Starry Night" to look for an unusually bright star in 2 and 3 BC. He doesn’t describe how he went about this investigation but what he arrived at was some very interesting heavenly phenomena starting in September of 3 BC. And by the way, earlier in the film he’s explored various candidates people have proposed to explain the star and eliminated all but the planets of the solar system, so he’s looking particularly at Jupiter, the largest planet, and looking for conjunctions of planets, where they appear so close together they look like one very bright object.
He’s also had to resolve his concern about getting into astrology since he’s finding signs in the planets’ movements through the constellations of the Zodiac belt. All that is interesting and he covers it early in the film as preliminary to his discoveries. It’s astrology in the sense that it’s not about the actual physics of the universe, chemistry and sizes and distances and all that, but about how the sky looks to a person on planet Earth, so that how large or bright an object looks to the naked eye has nothing to do with how large it is in reality or how far from other bodies. How it looks is the whole point. From our position on Earth the sun and planets travel through a belt of fixed or stationary stars that many peoples have arranged into figures to which they have given names. It looks like a ram so we call a particular configuration or cluster of stars Aries etc. There are twelve constellations or signs that make up the belt of the Zodiac, starting with Aries, then Taurus, Gemini and so on, through which the nine planets of the solar system including the sun and moon appear to move at different rates, The sun takes a month to travel through one of the signs, hence the “sun sign” astrologers associate with people’s birth month. In a nutshell Larson concludes that since the Bible itself refers to signs in the heavens that must mean that it’s not forbidden, reasoning that the stars and planets used as signs are indicators, while astrology treats them as controlling our lives and that’s what is forbidden.
So having resolved that question and the date of Herod’s death he goes on to show what he found in the sky starting in September of 3 BC. Looking at the sky from Babylon, which is where he thinks the Magi most likely came from, he finds Jupiter rising in the East in close conjunction with a distant star named Regulus, which of course is a visual effect from the vantage point of Earth, Regulus in fact being behind Jupiter in deep space. King planet Jupiter, named for the highest god in the Roman pantheon, in conjunction with a star also called King, and called that in many languages. Animating the computer program to watch the movement of Jupiter over time he shows that it appears to pass Regulus very closely three times, in a triple conjunction which is a pretty dramatic event. (Such a movement forward and backward is again a visual effect caused by our seeing it from the moving Earth.) As Larson describes the motion, it looks like Jupiter is “crowning” Regulus. Then he shows that this movement is occurring within the constellation Leo.
It is significant that this is occurring in the constellation or sign of Leo because the Messiah is prophesied in the Old Testament to come from the tribe of Judah, and Judah is represented as a lion, which is the same creature represented by that constellation:
The thing I think throws me the most is that he almost seems to want to avoid identifying the time of Christ's birth as shown by his own research. He finds what he says is the brightest star ever seen, on the very date all his study leads him to conclude was the birth of Christ, but without even pausing to note the exact date he rushes on to other interesting points in the story. This seems to me quite odd since the title of the film leads us to believe that the whole point was to identify that star on that date. I think he succeeded. I’m convfinced. I think he makes a great case for it and that he did show that there really was an actual brightest astronomical occurrence or “star” that appeared on the day of Christ’s birth exactly as we are told in the second chapter of the gospel of Matthew.
Since scripture doesn’t identify the date of His birth it’s not of major importance in itself but if the whole point of the study was to find the star it seems odd that he doesn’t even mention the date on which it occurred, which appears to have been a day in June of the year 2 BC based on his researches. The star he found was an extremely close conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Venus, the “father” and “mother” planets which is of course very appropriate for the occasion, and he claims that this conjunction was the brightest thing any of the Magi would have seen in their lifetimes. Since he considered the star to be independent evidence of Biblical truths, and in my opinion he succeeded in demonstrating that, it seems to me he should have been emphatic about the date and the claim that the star he found really was the brightest star ever seen. If it really was THE star that marked the birth of the Savior it has to be more than the brightest thing the Magi had seen in their lifetimes, it has to be the brightest thing in the sky anyone has ever seen, period.
In a recent interview on a Fox podcast I found at his website he admits that conjunctions between Jupiter and Venus occur from time to time, so that his claim is not that the conjunction itself is unique, but that this particular conjunction was the closest of them all and therefore the brightest. This needs more than a passing and vague reference. It took many viewings of the film for me to be able to pin down the doubts I kept having and this reason for them. I believe he made his case, I wish he’d made a bigger production of it so there would be no doubt he’d made it.
He’d been led to that date after some time of study and he doesn’t spell out all the steps that led him there, but it started with learning about Johannes Kepler’s attempts to find the star of Bethlehem. Kepler failed and Larson explains that as his having relied on a date for the death of Herod the Great given in the history of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. Herod ordered the killing of male babies up to the age of two when he heard of the birth of the “King of the Jews” as the Magi called Him, to eliminate competition for the throne of Israel, so he had to have still been alive at the time of Jesus’ birth. Josephus gives the date of his death as 4 BC so Kepler looked for a great star marking Christ’s birth in the years preceding that date.
But Larson found someone who showed that the date in Josephus was wrong, a printing or copying error. It turned out that all the copies of Josephus’ history printed before the year 1544 had 1 BC instead of 4 BC for Herod’s death. So that of course became the date Larson used for his investigation. (If you Google the date of Herod’s death you will find that the erroneous 4 BC is still used.)
So working from 1 BC as the latest year for Christ’s birth Larson used the astronomy program "Starry Night" to look for an unusually bright star in 2 and 3 BC. He doesn’t describe how he went about this investigation but what he arrived at was some very interesting heavenly phenomena starting in September of 3 BC. And by the way, earlier in the film he’s explored various candidates people have proposed to explain the star and eliminated all but the planets of the solar system, so he’s looking particularly at Jupiter, the largest planet, and looking for conjunctions of planets, where they appear so close together they look like one very bright object.
He’s also had to resolve his concern about getting into astrology since he’s finding signs in the planets’ movements through the constellations of the Zodiac belt. All that is interesting and he covers it early in the film as preliminary to his discoveries. It’s astrology in the sense that it’s not about the actual physics of the universe, chemistry and sizes and distances and all that, but about how the sky looks to a person on planet Earth, so that how large or bright an object looks to the naked eye has nothing to do with how large it is in reality or how far from other bodies. How it looks is the whole point. From our position on Earth the sun and planets travel through a belt of fixed or stationary stars that many peoples have arranged into figures to which they have given names. It looks like a ram so we call a particular configuration or cluster of stars Aries etc. There are twelve constellations or signs that make up the belt of the Zodiac, starting with Aries, then Taurus, Gemini and so on, through which the nine planets of the solar system including the sun and moon appear to move at different rates, The sun takes a month to travel through one of the signs, hence the “sun sign” astrologers associate with people’s birth month. In a nutshell Larson concludes that since the Bible itself refers to signs in the heavens that must mean that it’s not forbidden, reasoning that the stars and planets used as signs are indicators, while astrology treats them as controlling our lives and that’s what is forbidden.
So having resolved that question and the date of Herod’s death he goes on to show what he found in the sky starting in September of 3 BC. Looking at the sky from Babylon, which is where he thinks the Magi most likely came from, he finds Jupiter rising in the East in close conjunction with a distant star named Regulus, which of course is a visual effect from the vantage point of Earth, Regulus in fact being behind Jupiter in deep space. King planet Jupiter, named for the highest god in the Roman pantheon, in conjunction with a star also called King, and called that in many languages. Animating the computer program to watch the movement of Jupiter over time he shows that it appears to pass Regulus very closely three times, in a triple conjunction which is a pretty dramatic event. (Such a movement forward and backward is again a visual effect caused by our seeing it from the moving Earth.) As Larson describes the motion, it looks like Jupiter is “crowning” Regulus. Then he shows that this movement is occurring within the constellation Leo.
It is significant that this is occurring in the constellation or sign of Leo because the Messiah is prophesied in the Old Testament to come from the tribe of Judah, and Judah is represented as a lion, which is the same creature represented by that constellation:
Genesis 49:9-10 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
"Shiloh" by the way is a term for the Messiah. The prophecy is saying that the Messiah will come from Judah, after a long line of kings bearing the sceptre of power that precede Him.
Then Larson shows that on September 3rd of 3 BC the next constellation after Leo is seen rising in the East and that is the sign of Virgo the Virgin, and the crescent moon is under its feet. This very image is described in the twelfth chapter of the Book of Revelation:
Revelation 12:1-2 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
This image is usually interpreted as the nation of Israel, but in this context it may fit the virgin girl Mary better. The time is the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, and If Larson’s reasoning is correct, this image may represent the moment of Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit, as announced by the angel Gabriel. It isn’t all that clear in the documentary itself, at least not to me, but he makes it clearer on his website that the crowning of Regulus by Jupiter in Leo is actually going on while the sun is in Virgo, simultaneously with the appearance of the virgin with the crescent moon at her feet, representing pregnancy. The triple conjunction in Leo acts as a sort of announcement of the birth of the Messiah though it is occurring at the same time. Either conception or birth is an appropriate interpretation of the rising of Virgo with the new moon beneath her feet. It’s the new moon of Rosh Hashanah or Jewish New Year symbolizing a beginning. It’s interesting that “between his feet” in the prophecy of the lawgiver from the tribe of Judah as quoted above, refers to his descendants, and the moon beneath the feet of the Virgin also signifies a descendant, or birth. Its being a new moon could represent birth or conception but since there is no bright star here the best guess is conception, and to find out Larson takes the computer program nine months into the future.
Which is where he finds that conjunction of Jupiter with Venus that began this post, the brightest heavenly phenomenon ever seen in the lifetimes of the Magi. As I said, I wish he’d made it more evident that he’s claiming it was the brightest heavenly object ever seen by anyone ever, and given the date of its appearance and made some to-do about this as the fulfillment of his research. I’m convinced anyway, but I’ve had to work to overcome some confusion and doubts to get convinced.
Instead of lingering on that point, however, he goes on to describe how the “star” led the Magi first to Jerusalem from Babylon, and then from there to Bethlehem where they bestowed gifts on the baby born King of the Jews according to that star. So they being watchers of the heavens saw this brightest star that had ever been seen rising in the eastern sky nine months after the heavenly phenomena they would also have witnessed, the close conjunction of Jupiter with Regulus in the sign of the lion which is the sign of Judah, followed by the Virgin with the crescent moon indicating a pregnancy. When nine months later the extraordinarily bright conjunction of Jupiter with Venus occurs they understand all these signs together to indicate that a great king has been -- born among the Jews. Larson doesn’t say in what sign this conjunction occurs but since it takes twelve years for Jupiter to circle the sun perhaps it’s still in Leo. I could find out by consulting an Ephemeris, which is a table of the exact positions of all the planets in the Zodiac over thousands of years, and maybe I’ll do that eventually.
One possibly original contribution Larson makes to this story is his conjecture that the Magi were probably Jewish themselves. It makes sense because they are so interested in the birth of this King of the jews. The idea is that they were probably among the remnant of the jews who stayed in Babylon at the end of the seventy-year exile, as Daniel the prophet also did, and trained under his authority. They would have known of all the prophecies of the coming Messiah, known them from Daniel’s own prophecies as well as from the heavenly signs. Even the pagan Magi might have been interested in such a birth as they could see spelled out in the sky, but to travel to Jerusalem to worship Him seems far more likely to be something a Jewish Magus would do. So I think Larson may have hit on something important here.
Something that puzzles me is his saying that at Christmastime this conjunction is shown in the planetaria. Why if it occurred in June? Are they saying this was the star and He was born in June? Larson doesn’t tell us and I remain puzzled. (This occurs around 42 on the counter for the video). In that case the star was already discovered before Larson discovered it. I don’t have a way to resolve this. I’ve written to Larson about this among other questions I have but of course he probably gets too many emails to answer me. We’ll see. It doesn’t change the conclusion that this conjunction WAS the Star of Bethlehem though.
But on we go as the Magi first arrive in Jerusalem and inquire where the child was born, and are told how to get to Bethlehem. If they were Jewish as Larson supposes, they would have been familiar with the Micah prophecy of His birth in the town of Bethlehem, but being from Babylon they might not have known how to get there. That’s how I’m putting this together anyway. They referred to the child as the King of the Jews which is what provoked Herod to murder so many male babies, and after they had seen the child in Bethlehem Mary and Joseph took the baby to Egypt, having been warned of the slaughter to come.
Took time out here to read more of the Star of Bethlehem website including some of the Comments. Plenty of people have strong opinions about the star and the time of Christ’s birth that are different from Larson’s and want to argue with him about it. I continue to think he’s made his case though. And in one of his replies to a comment he says he considers 9/3 of 3 BC to be the time of Jesus’ conception, and 6/2 of 2 BC to be His birth. Finally he gives a date for that, but otherwise as far as I’ve read in the site he continues to slight the birth date and I continue to wonder why. He also makes it clear that he thinks that the brightest star which he’s identified as the Jupiter-Venus conjunction in June of 2 BC would not have attracted the attention of ordinary people but only those who studied the sky such as the Magi. This is to explain why Herod didn’t know about the birth of the Messiah. I guess I’ll accept that explanation, but since people were all very aware of the starry sky in that part of the world in those days it does raise a question why it wasn’t more apparent to people in general.
Larson has given the Magi travel time so that he has them arriving in Jerusalem in November. Now they set course for Bethlehem which is five miles south of Jerusalem, and they have the Star in the south to lead the way. The Star is no longer a conjunction but simply the planet Jupiter which is also a bit of a puzzle. Wouldn’t the Star remain the Star for this event? Wouldn’t it be that conjunction that stood over the town of Bethlehem? But of course both planets wouldn’t go into retrograde at the same time, retrograde meaning the point where from our point of view a planet appears to stop and reverse course. But as Larson shows in his astronomy software, Jupiter did appear to stop over the town of Bethlehem just as the Magi approached it from the north, confirming their calculations about the birth of the King of the Jews. And rather amazingly it came to a stop on December 25th of that year! So that was the first Christmas? Not at Christ’s birth but six months later. The family had moved into a house by then. How long Jupiter remained poised at the point where it stopped Larson doesn’t say, but that’s something I’d like to know. Possibly days at least? Anyway it had led them to the King, they bestowed their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, and went home by another route than they’d come by, having been warned in a dream of Herod’s intentions and not wanting to return to report to him as he’d requested.
Lots of interesting celestial phenomena stacking up here. I still think he should have made much more of the conjunction in June of 2 BC which must have been when Jesus was actually born, but the other phenomena he discovers are certainly just as interesting. He goes on from this point to find out when Christ was crucified and to look at the sky on that day. He says that he’s come to regard the heavenly signs surrounding Jesus’ life and death as a Celestial Poem of great beauty, and I think he also makes that case.
Jesus died on Preparation Day which is always on a Friday as it is the day when the Jews prepare for the following Sabbath . Since they are forbidden to work on the Sabbatgh they do all the work of cooking and other household chores the day before. In the year that Jesus died on the cross Passover had to fall on a Friday, and with that clue in mind he tracks the year to 33 AD, April 3rd. And what he finds in the sky there is what he considers to be the ending of the Celestial Poem: Just as Jesus died, at three in the afternoon, the moon rose in eclipse, a blood moon. , and the sign that rose in the sky at that same hour was Virgo with that blood moon at her feet, a full moon now. These events certainly could make one’s hair stand on end, as he says happened to him when he discovered them.
Although I may still need to puzzle through a few things, just writing all this out has answered manyh of my questions. I’m convinced. I was already convinced but I’m more convinced. I think Rick Larson’s study has discovered the meaning of the Star of Bethlehem, the date of Jesus’ birth, and that he’s gone on to demonstrate much celestial drama surrounding the life and death of the Messiah overall, that Celestial Poem as he calls it. I think his study should become better known.
Later addition: The birth date of Jesus that it seems to me Rick Larson seems to rush past, June 2nc of 2 BC, occurs in the sign of Genmini which doesn't have any biblical correspondences that I know of although there are those who claim the entire Zodiac represents the gospel story. And I may be pushing things here but I thought I'd add that Gemini is represented as The Twins, and if there is significance4 to that as Christ's birthdate perhaps it's in the fact that He is known as the God-Man, as having two natures in Himself. Certainly not identical as the concept of twins suggests, but two. On the Star website in the comments section I think on the page about the travels of the Magi someone asks more than once what sign the conjuunction of Jupiter and Venus occurs in and doesn't get an answer. That's a question I had too, since nine months earlier Jupiter was in Leo making that triple conjunction with Regulus. It takes Jupiter twelve years to travel around the sun so it could still have been in Leo or could have moved on to Virgo in those nine months. If its position nine months earlier has significance one would expect it would still have significance on the day Jesus was born. The sun is in Gemini, the question is where was Jupiter.\
Another major sign he doesn't mention in the documentary is of course that the crucifixion occurred in the sign of Aries the ram, and that is very significant because Jesus isknown as the Lamb of God, the sacrificial lamb who died to pay for the sins of those who believe on Him. He died on Passover which for some fifteen hundred years or so since the Israelites were led out of Egypt by Moses was commemorated every year as commanded by God, looking forward to this final one-and-only sacrifice for sin. It was lamb's blood that was painted on the doorposts of the houses of the Israelites to mark them to be spared when the angel of death came through. This was the final plague against Egypt God wrought and it launches the Israelites on their journey to the Promised Land. That symbolism carries into the crucifixion and so does the sign of Aries the ram. It's all real, it's all real history, it's all God's arranging history to carry symbolism. It's all very amazing. The Star of Bethlehem carries on the amazing story as does the revelation of the Celestial Poem Rick Larson identifies. You can't make up this stuff though they always try to claim you can.
