The Star of Bethlehem

Here is an intresting abstract from Science and the Christian Belief:

Evidence from the Bible and astronomy suggests that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet which was visible in 5 BC, and described in ancient Chinese records. A comet uniquely fits the description in Matthew of a star which newly appeared, which travelled slowly through the sky against the star background and which 'stood over' Bethlehem. The evidence points to Jesus being bom in the period 9 March-4 May, 5 BC, probably around Passover time: 13-27 April, 5 BC. Birth in the spring is consistent with the account in Luke that there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby keeping watch over their flock by night. Birth in 5 BC also throws light upon the problem of the census of Caesar Augustus. A new chronology of the life of Christ is given which is consistent with the available evidence. This chronology suggests that Christ died close to his 37th birthday.

The article can be read here. There is also a nice pdf powerpoint file here. This seems to be an empirical validation of the testimony of the Gospels with regards to the birth of Christ. Now the simple existence of a comet, while interesting wouldn't amount to much in the way of evidence to say that the magi (a group of astologers and persian-parthinian elite), would make the journey, but if astological signs were indicating that such a great, or divine, king was to be born in Israel in different ways over 3 three consecutive years, such conjunctions being obscenely rare, it is then not surprising or out of the ordinary to suggest that they would do so. Intrestingly, the article goes to address the behavior of the Comet as following exactly the same behavior as described of the Star in Matthew. In the past such ideas like a Comet were not considered as a probable explanation because of the question as to how a comet could follow the description of the star's erratic behavior, and the cultural implications. These are addressed in the article as well. Please don't take my word for it, or think you have to.

I understand that someone can accuse or make the argument of contrivance, but I do not think that the Gospel writers were even farmiliar with Persian Astrology. Of course even if they were it is still very coincidental that we have a conjunction in 7 BC, that occurs every 900 years, then one in 6BC, which occurs every 800 years, then the very next year, the appearance of a comet in coincidentally the right constellation (house of Saturn, the Divine Father) to suggest the birth of a Divine King. However you view it, this coincides with what Jesus claimed about himself, and could only be Jesus, because Israel was specified in the Pisces.

But questions arise from this of course. Astrology then can be valid? I know a number of people would suddenly shout "NO!" simply because our modern experience with astrology or because of the planet worship of many ancient peoples. Astrology however does not necessitate planet worship, and much of it has become bastardized from the original strains of whatever was what in the ancient world, through syncretism, and time. Now perhaps God was simply communicating to the Magi in a way they could understand. If the idea was fraudulent though, would he really have chosen to do it that way? I am not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe thats a poor way to look at it. If we accept that Jesus was who he claimed to be, then is it possible that there is/was some kind of real and accurate astrology? If we don't, then there is obviously another big question staring us in the face. Either way, this world is a lot more mysterious than people give it credit for.

According to Colin Humphreys, he first presented these arguments in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical society. Here is the full citation for that article however I have not found it accessible online:

Colin J. Humphreys, "The Star of Bethlehem - a Comet in 5 BC -and the Date of the Birth of Christ", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 32, p. 389 (1991).