Talk:Star of Bethlehem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Triple conjunction, star map

It seems odd that there is no mention of the TRIPLE conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC - 6 BC, which was an important part of Kepler's speculations on the subject... AnonMoos 16:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The star map does not indicate what time it is for. It certainly is not for the birth of Jesus since there is no agreement for what year it happened let alone the time of year. It is also violates NPOV since there are many who think Jesus did not exist at all. (I suspect he did, but what I suspect should not be put in as fact into Wikipedia.) MichaelSH 13:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE OF POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS

Member USER:Kauffner (hello) is referencing and summarizing copyrighted works in the main article. IT IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION TO DISCLOSE THE 'HEART AND SOUL' OF AN AUTHOR'S PUBLISHED WORK (one example is your use of Molnar's book). THESE ITEMS CAN BE MENTIONED IN THE REFERENCE OR EXTERNAL LINKS SECTION, however, citing the complete abbreviated substance of a published work is a copyright violation that is subject to a lawsuit (absent the author's permission). Giving away the results of an author's research and published works is a violation of Wikipedia policy and a violation of the Copyright Laws.

• Otherwise you have done a really good job in revamping the main article. (Please see 'Other Notes' below regarding ancient astrology). John Charles Webb 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, 'giving away the results of an author's research' is certainly not a copyright violation. Uncredited copying of the author's way of expressing those results would be, but referenced summary is normal academic and wikipedia practice. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Other notes

This text (Quote) "Note that there is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus was born on the day the star first appeared and thus no way to use astronomical phenomenon to determine a specific day of birth." (end quote) is POV (point-of-view) and has been neutralized according to Wikipedia editorial policy. John Charles Webb 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding astrology - Astronomy is the observation of celestial phenomenon and ancient astrology is the interpretation of observed astronomical phenomenon. Any star (or celestial event) representing a birth is within the realm of ancient astrology. This astronomical/astrological observation is reinforced by the Magi, or wise men's role as astronomer/astrologers. During the time of the birth of Christ astronomy and astrology were, in fact, the same 'science'. Any scholarly investigation of The Star of Bethlehem is incomplete without including an astrological analysis [[1]] based upon the ancient astrological model (geometric depiction of the solar system) of that time period. The contemporary scientific posture regarding astrology is inconsequential when applied to an event that took place over 2000 years ago. An additionally relevant note is that whoever built The Great Pyramid (2800 BC) possessed a knowledge of the complete solar system and incorporated that information in many of the ratios and dimensions of the pyramid. [[2]] I mention The Great Pyramid information because it will, perhaps, put a stop to thinking that all of the people from the time-frame in question (2000 BC) were 'primitive' and could not tell the difference between a planet and a star. See, [[3]] There is a significant body of work linking the Christ and The Great Pyramid [[4]]John Charles Webb 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hi. I don’t think that this is a good article under the criteria. Good points are that it’s written from a NPOV and well-illustrated. But it has two major problems:

1.It’s not well-written. For instance: ‘Herod, who had learned earlier from the magi when star first appeared, kills all male children in Bethlehem age 2 and under’. There are a number of other typos and odd or incorrect forms of expression. In particular, there’s a tendency to miss out articles (‘a’, ‘the’) and to confuse past and present tenses.

2.It lacks inline citations in the Lead and ‘Biblical narrative’ sections. For instance, ‘The Gospel of Mark, considered the oldest and most historical of the four gospels under the doctrine of Markan priority’ needs a citation.

On these grounds, I’m going to fail it. But it’s close: a decent copyedit and making sure that it’s all verified and it’ll be there. Please feel free to get in touch if you’d like help with copyediting. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have taken care of all the points made in the review and renominate the article as "good article."Kauffner 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I've failed this article primarily because it doesn't fulfill requirement 3, that a good article should be broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic. Some of the questions that the article doesn't deal with include:

1. What do modern Biblical scholars say about the fact that the Star of Bethlehem appears in only one of the gospels? Do they have an explanation for this?
2. Are there any other contemporary accounts of a strange star in the heavens?

3. Is it possible that there wasn't such a star?

Also, the article seems to have a mix of citation styles. You'll want to convert the few embedded links into footnotes.

Feel free to resubmit when these issues have been dealt with. MLilburne 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue with the references and added a "textual analysis" subsection to address points 1 and 3. (See footnote #23 as well.) I wonder how far along this path we should go. The reasons to believe in the star are based on Christian theology and prophecy rather than eyewitness accounts. If you're writing an article about Zeus, you don't need to include a section entitled, "Did Zeus really exist?"

IMO, point 2 was already adequately addressed. Both Babylonian and Chinese records are referred to.Kauffner 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be one thing if you were writing an article about a myth, as in the article about Zeus. But the way that this article is written suggests that it is about an actual astronomical event, in which case eyewitness accounts should be referred to, and scientific standards of proof should be adhered to. I hadn't spotted the reference to the Chinese records on first reading as they are hidden very close to the bottom of that paragraph, as if they are not particularly important. It strikes me that is one of the few observations that sounds more convincing, so you might want to spend a little more time discussing it.

Your textual analysis section seems to deal more with Jesus' birth than with the issue of the star. A short article that offers the sort of context I was thinking of can be found here. You may also want to look at the original article by Martin Gardner in the "Skeptical Inquirer".

I will let another GA reviewer consider the article this time, but it's my opinion that it's still not up to the standard. MLilburne 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I added some details concerning the Chinese astrology observations and expanded the lead. The Stevens article is mainly an arguement for the Jesus as myth concept and didn't strike me as relevant. He connects the magi to Persian myth, mostly because magi is a word of Persian origin. But in the Gospels, the word is a general term that means something like "wise men," "psychics," "magicians," "astrologers," or "dream interpreters." It is a usage derived from the Book of Daniel and is thus several degrees removed magi in the original sense of a Persian or Median priestly caste.Kauffner 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If some people feel that the Star of Bethlehem is also a myth, then I do feel that is relevant to the article, and needs to be dealt with. MLilburne 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Stevens article isn't really about the Star of Bethlehem, but only uses the subject as a jumping off point to discuss Persian mythology. I suppose the bottom line here is you just don't like the article for whatever reason and that's appearently all there is to it.Kauffner 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I have tried, in good faith, to get across why I believe that the article is incomplete as it currently stands. Perhaps I haven't done a very good job of doing so. If that is the case, I apologise. I will try to put aside some time to work on it myself over the Christmas break, rather than asking you to add in any more material yourself. MLilburne 08:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the article is OK for GA.....

I think that the star of Betlehem is such a fundamtental Christian myth, that it shouldn't need to be scrutinized from a Chinese viewpoint. Of course, this is only my POV, but I wanted to express it. Feel free to reply. / Fred-Chess 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the Chinese viewpoint per se. I'm only concerned about the scientific viewpoint and whether there is reliable evidence for the star's existence. If there are people (as there are) who doubt that the Star of Bethlehem was a real astronomical phenomenon, then the article ought to acknowledge that. But I've said my piece. MLilburne 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA

This article is very well written and broad in context in that it covers all the theories of the appearances of a star over Bethlehem for the possible range of dates of Jesus' birth. The illustrations are excellent and it is carefully NPOV. BMoos 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

>>> - Comment: (12/30/06) The opening lines of the article are (somewhat) POV: (quote) The Star of Bethlehem, also called the Christmas Star or the Jesus Star, was an object in the sky which revealed the birth of Jesus to the magi and later led them to a house (not a manger)[1] where they found the child Jesus and his family, according to the nativity narratives in the New Testament.[2] The magi were men "from the east" who were inspired by the star to travel to Jerusalem in search of a newly-born king of the Jews.... (end quote).

- I Suggest replacing "was an object in the sky" with "a celestial event". It is important to note that "The Star" was not witnessed (no record) by anybody other than the Magi. The phenomenon may have been an "object in the sky", however, planetary conjunctions (as mentioned in the body of the main article) are not an "object" (aster) but an assembly (asterism) of objects. The term "a celestial event" is NPOV.

- The child (according to Matthew) was found with his mother. There is no mention, in the gospel, of the child being found with his (quote) 'family' as stated in the main article. Quote from Matthew: "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother", (End quote).

- The text in the main article "(not a manger)" is accurate but inconsequential because the Magi were not on the scene at Christ's birth (manger/stable?) but at some later time when Christ was a "young child".

These (above) slight discrepancies may go unnoticed by the average reader, however, to a person who has studied this matter, they (the discrepancies) appear as errors and are POV unsupported by the Gospel of Matthew. They wave a small 'red flag' (perhaps) reqarding the reliability and accuracy of the rest of the main article. John Charles Webb 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted as GA candidate

I am relisting this as a GA candidate per the discussion here. MLilburne 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA

An excellent article that is a credit to Wikipedia. Superbly referenced. Will need more work pre-FA if that is the intention, but currently this strolls past WIAGA. Moreschi 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

I'm surprised to see no reference of Frederick A. Larson recent video of his lecture on Star of Bethlehem. If you are interested in this subject, I suggest seeking out this video. Very detailed, but there are others.--Kjmoran 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As for references, there will be a new article on the Star in the December 2007 issue of Sky & Telescope which may have some useful information. I don't think it has hit bookstores yet, but it would be good to keep an eye out for any new info. (Also note, I fixed a small typo on the comment above, which was a misspelling of Bethlehem.)--Gilgamesh 42 03:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I found that reference 32 (Mark, Kidger. "Chinese and Babylonian Observations". Retrieved on 2008-06-05.) is at best weak. The site linked provides no credentials and lists no sources for its information. Either find a new scholarly source for the same information or the segment should be re-written and all reference to Korean and Chinese astronomy removed. (Edit: I'm a moron and forgot to sign my comment.) --Kelryn firehand (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kidger is a big league science writer, the author of The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomer's View. Kauffner (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And then there's what actually happened, if you care to know

"Because the magi told Herod that they saw the star "at its rising",[28] the obvious conclusion is that of an astronomical object."

So obvious that people are still apparently arguing about it on the internet.

This is an incorrect assumption and should be corrected.

According to the Bible:

“After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was.” Matthew 2:9

This could not have been anything outside the earth’s atmosphere such as the astronomical events currently occupying the debate. If it were, those men would have continued walking west to the coast.

If you think this is crazy, look at the opening pages of Ezekiel and think about it. Thankfully some passages were too difficult to interpret and therefore could not be RE-interpreted during centuries of edits and translation.

A good analysis suggests that it was outside the earth's atmosphere

See the website http://www.bethlehemstar.net/ CarverM (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An Astronomical Picture or Sign

On closer examination, this section appears to reflect the opinion of only one person, its major source is his own website, and the material was all added in July and August 2007 by an editor with the same name as this person. I can find no independent confirmation of this theory, the author appears to be completely non-notable, and the detail is highly speculative and represents a single, non-neutral point of view. It appears to be completely original research, and I am going to delete the entire section on this account. This article is already long and technical enough without this sort of thing. Rbreen (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Or rather this is the only truely Biblical interpretation for a story that finds it first and primary information in the Bible. This has been quoted both on TV and in an independent book. No other theory answers all the questions and problems of why the magi came to Jerusalem and how the star guided them to the exact house where Jesus was dwelling. I have restored this section and plan to continue to restore it.

Let me explain why I have reverted this again. You appear to have made no other contributions to Wikipedia, so perhaps you are unaware of the relevant policies.

• Firstly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is not a place to promote a particular viewpoint.

• Secondly, Wikipedia does not allow original research: "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

• Thirdly, Wikipedia insists on citations from verifiable sources, not self-published ones: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia."

• Fourthly, Wikipedia insists that citations should come from good secondary sources, not primary ones such as the Bible: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources". ... Interpretation of primary source material is not allowed: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Although you have given sources for the section you have added, they conflict with these central Wikipedia policies:

"A purpose for the sun, moon and stars is to be for signs or pictures."

This is a personal interpretation of a biblical passage - and apparently an incorrect one, since all the major translations say 'for signs', not 'for signs or pictures'.

"From August 20 to August 24, 2 B.C. three wandering stars (or planets) formed a picture of a ruler’s staff or scepter, in the feet area of the constellation or picture of Leo (the Lion). On Aug 24 these pictures were marked by a heliacal rising of Venus, the bright morning star appeared, it continued to rise and was visible throughout the day"

Again, a personal interpretation, since the 'picture' is entirely a matter of opinion. The citation may well be valid for the last point here, but not for the remainder.

"setting and guiding the magi west. Jesus identified himself as the bright morning star."

An accurate bible quote, but the connection to the Star of Bethlehem is entirely your own interpretation.

"Venus, the Star of Bethlehem, marked the sign as belonging to Jesus. This fulfilled the prophecy of Jacob, “Judah is a lion’s cub.… The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs, and the obedience of the nations is his.”"

again, an accurate quote (though there is an alternative reading, 'Shiloh' for 'to whom it belongs'). But the fulfilment of prophecy is your interpretation. Can you cite a verifiable source for this?

"The magi saw the picture in the east, indicating the king of the Jews would be born, the one who would rule all the nations. In order to be certain the child was born, the magi did not arrive in Jerusalem until Venus was next due to rise with the sun 1.6 years later. They came to the king in Jerusalem, the Jewish capital, assuming his son would be that ruler. King Herod had no minor children and directed them to Bethlehem because it was the prophesied location of the Messiah’s birth. The star did not guide them to Bethlehem rather it guided them from their camping location to the exact house where Jesus lived. Before dawn, after they arrived east of Bethlehem, Venus arose in the constellation or picture of Aries (ram or lamb). Venus continued to rise after dawn and was visible throughout the day, it disappeared (or stopped) in the west before sundown, over Jesus’ home, in a city of shepherds on Passover."

The source here is your own, self-published website. [5]

"The star marked the house of a lamb, the Lamb of God was born.

Astrology, considered by many to be forbidden by the Bible, does not play a part in the interpretation of these pictures."

Here the source is a self-published book, produced through the print-on-demand service, Lulu.com:

"The link between the star and the scepter in the Star Prophesy, "A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel," is Biblical poetry."

a biblical quote, and again a personal interpretaion.

"This is a common feature of Scripture where something is said multiple times in different words or synonymously. The star is parallel to the scepter and Jacob is parallel to Israel. Both risings of Venus were seen on the first possible day of visibility. Today some say these signs were not visible due to extinction, but both the Babylonian and Mayan astronomers recorded many years of Venus sightings on both the last possible day and first possible day of visibility at the inferior conjunction. Light, particles, and humidity reduce visibility today making these sightings unlikely.

King Herod reacted to the Star Prophecy because it predicted the coming ruler would crush the heads of … Edom,"

primary source, with personal interpretation.

"and Herod was Idumean that is an Edomite. Though he was old he wanted his sons to rule after him."

source, again, is your personal website.

Please do not add this in again until you can support the argument with independent citations from notable, verifiable sources as explained in the policies listed above. If you can do this, you are welcome to include this material in the article.--Rbreen (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Seal of Solomon

I have deleted a section under astrology that outlines a theory about the star as a conjunction showing the Star of Solomon. This was under the principle of no original research, since it appeared to be one person's theory and the only citation provided was a website operated by the person who seems to have come up with the idea, and the section was written, as far as I could see, by the same person. This section has now been restored, with a citation. However, the citation is from a popular astrology magazine, and features an article apparently written by the same person. This is not an acceptable citation under WP:SOURCES ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.") and still appears to be nothing more than one person's original research, unsupported by any notable external citation. This is an important article, and includes facts and arguments supported by citations from scholarly published works. It doesn't help to include such poorly sourced material; I am deleting it again, until someone provides evidence that this is a view which has widespread support from notable, substantial sources. --Rbreen (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Star Chart points south!

What's the point of the star chart? Sure, it's historically and scientifically accurate, but it points south! Would the star of the east be in the south? 69.220.2.188 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stars rise in the east and set in the west, except for the North Star. So there is no such thing as a "star of the east." Kauffner (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bible does not mention about "star of the east" and also about "star of Bethlehem." Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Brown and "most modern scholars"

Raymond E. Brown argues: "no astronomical record exists of what is described in Matthew"

The astronomy records that survive from New Testament times are a pretty primitive. They're mostly just lists of which planets were in which constellation during a certain month. So a lack of astronomy records concerning the Star of Bethlehem should not be surprising. We have a whole subsection detailing the astronomy arguments that allows readers to come to their own conclusions. Astronomical object and historical fiction are not the only two possibilities anyway. Not only that, but Brown is a New Testament scholar rather than an astronomer.

Most modern scholars, however, argue that Luke was simply mistaken.

It's true that there was no literal census at the time Luke claims there was one. But to put this way sounds like we gave him a test and he failed. "Most modern scholars" -- no one took a survey, you know. Kauffner (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Simon Bar Kokhba and Other Notes

Bar Kokhba's tetradrachm. Obverse: the Temple facade with the rising star. Reverse: A lulav, the text reads: "Year one of the redemption of Israel"

In reference to the Numbers prophecy, Simon Bar Kokhba was clearly viewed as a Jewish Messiah. The following coin was minted around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135). It shows a star over the Temple of Jerusalem (destroyed A.D. 70 by the Romans). This demonstrates that the Numbers prophecy was viewed as referring to a 'Star' in the astronomical sense by Jews who lived under 100 years after the death of Jesus. It is clear from reading Josephus that before, during and after the time of Jesus that this prophecy was believed to refer to an "astronomical object".

MARK is believed to be the earliest Gospel. This seems to me to be correct. I think this is why Peter acquired such an important position in the early Church - his being the first written account of Jesus. It is not written in Mark that Peter is the Rock on which the Church shall be built, etc. MARK is believed to be written by someone who recorded Peter's sayings. It makes no reference to the Star prophecy, if I remember correctly (Also see See Q document). It seems to reference every other prophecy, however - this may be why it and the nativity are emphasised in Matthew/Luke. As regard the year of Jesus' birth - Ignore the Census for now, as an error by someone who clearly didn't know Jesus' Date of Birth (i.e. Luke) and was obviously only guessing his age. Herod is believed to have died 4 BC. Add two years for the massacre. That gives 6 BC approximately. That I believe is the earliest date possible for Jesus' Birth. It is stated that Joseph and family stayed in Egypt until Herod's death, then moved to Nazareth to avoid living under Herod the Great's son, Herod Archelaus who was Ethnarch of Samaria, Judea and Idumea, 4 BC to AD 6. This cancels out the Quirinius Census info. It would have to have taken place before 4 B.C. Quirinius was not legate of Syria (which then included Israel/Palestine region) until A.D. 6. So Luke is mistaken as as he clearly states it was Quirinius' Census (which occurred about AD 6). Jesus was crucified when Pontius Pilate was in charge (AD 26 - 36). From Luke 3.1 we know John the Baptist was alive A.D. 29 (15th year of Tiberius' reign). We know Jesus was crucified after John the Baptist was executed. Therefore, if Luke is correct here, Jesus was crucified between A.D. 29 and A.D. 36. Add 2 (or 3) years for 3 passovers, therefore crucified between A.D. 31 - 36. Jesus, therefore, had to be at least 36-37 years old when he died - but was probably older. There is a reference in John somewhere where the Jews accuse Jesus, who was "not yet fifty" of claiming to see Abraham. Luke and Matthew were probably written based on Mark (they share exact wording often). John is very different. Remember that Luke was not a disciple of Jesus - but John, the author of the Gospel of John, is believed to have been John the disciple of Jesus. Also it is not always easy to guess a person's age. But John's reference conflict's with Luke's, as John's seems to imply that Jesus was in his forties at the time mentioned during his ministry (A.D. 29 - 31). Given the facts it seems that Luke's nativity story is either at best full of errors or at worst invented. Therefore, if a Star really did appear, Luke's story is clearly not factual and needs to be largely ignored in determining the date of Jesus' Birth and the astronomical object's appearance. Luke is only useful in giving certain details of the nature of the prophecy.

Dneale52 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem in the Bible.

1. In the Bible there is no such usage as A Star. A new star, or Star of Bethlehem. Note that King Herod, his Chief priests, and teachers of the law, none of them were able to see this star (or a nova, a planet, a comet or a conjunction).

In the Bible Gospel of Matthew Chapter 2: 1, clearly says that they saw His Star in the East. In this article it is not mentined that they saw His Star. His star is different from A star. Probably the writers are unaware that even today (twent-first century) almost all the people in a place in India, knows the name of His Star or Her Star. Some of them add the name of “His Star or Her Star” with their names. These wise men might have come from that area.

2. Magos is a greek word which by implication means a magician. (see Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. No.3097). Jesus nor the disciples used Greek or Persian. So the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. In Hebrew the word used is Châkam, meaning to be wise in mind, word and Act. (see Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. No.2449). The same word is used in the same gospel in verses 7:24 and 23:34 but the translation given there is “wise men” and not Magi or Magoi or Magos. This clearly means that the correct translation is wise men and not magi.

2. Bible tells that they came from the East. According to the first century historian Strabo (64 BC – 19 AD), Korami (Cape Comerin, now known as Kanyakumari) in South India was the eastern point of the then known world. So the wise men could have come from anywhere from Persia (modern Iraq) to Kanyakumari in South India.

Astronomy and astrology were not limited to Persia and Babylon. It was well advanced in almost all of the East in the first century.

They were from the East, they were wise men, there were more than three people including astrologers and their journey was described by first century historians including King Herod’s historian who met these wise men at Antioch, near Daphne. The wisemen returned to their country. Some of them later became followers of Jesus of Nazreth.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

King Herod advised the Magi?

The first paragraph of this article states that King Herod ADVISED the Magi that the King of the Jews was in a nearby town. As far as Herod was concerned, Herod himself WAS the king of the Jews. The scriptures state that Herod ASKED the Magi to return and inform him where they found the Messiah under the pretense that Herod would then go to worship the child Messiah. King Herod intended to murder the child, as is evidenced by his subsequent command to slaughter every male under two years old in that region. Premium310 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)premium310

What is earliest accurate dating of a text that mentions of the star of Bethlehem?

This may be an easy question for Biblical scholars but what is earliest accurate dating of a text that mentions of the star of Bethlehem? I'm looking for an definitive answer along the lines of "it is nearly indisputable that the star of Bethlehem was mentioned in a text dating to or discovered in the year ______". I am less interested in internal values than external ones. I could write a book today that says WWII occurred in 500 AD but that doesn't mean it did. Under the assumption that the star was a supernovae or a nova, I am looking for a hard upper limit to the year the it could have occurred. In particular, is the year 185 AD out of the question? Why? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gospel of Matthew is the only primary source, the origin of the story. Based on textual evidence, this gospel is thought to have been composed in AD 85-90. The oldest manuscript for Matthew, called P45, is dated AD 250.[6] Kauffner (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Expectations

I have deleted the section "Jewish Expectations" because (a) this implies that the Star was a fulfilment of Jewish expectations outlined here, although a close examination of the texts shows that they substantially post-date the era of Jesus; and (b) the citations are all from original texts and not from secondary sources, and this appears to constitute original research and advance a fringe theory. --Rbreen (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is, with all due respect, ridiculous. There is nothing fringe about this. While the Zohar's quote is obviously much deeper than a literal interpretation, the the fact remains: Jews expect a star in the east prior to the Messiah's coming. To say that this is a "fringe theory" is ignoring the text. The inclusion of the Jewish Expectations section is totally valid, as the idea exists in numerous sources - and the dating of Jewish traditions is notoriously difficult, because the traditions have existed as Torah Sh'ba'al Peh (Oral Torah) before being codified much later. So when these ideas came about is difficult to say, and the best argument for their existence beforehand is actually the inclusion of the Star Narrative in the book of Matthew. Thanks. I am reverting this, and this section should not be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRBurton (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the title from "Jewish Expectations" to "Jewish Literature". I've also noted about the notoriously difficult task of dating Jewish traditions, and that it is probable these ideas were in circulation at the time. The fact that these ideas exist in Judaism today is an argument for their ancient authenticity, because of the striking similarity to the Gospel's Star narrative, the inclination of ancient Judaism would be to resist the idea, and excise it from Jewish thought if it were a foreign concept. The fact that these quotations have survived in numerous texts (although some are interdependent), makes highly probable that this tradition is indeed native to Jewish thought. - BRBurton, 7-2-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRBurton (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this section again. Perhaps it is not fringe speculation, but it is based entirely on original sources, not secondary ones. Such a substantial section of an article cannot be based on references to sources like these - that appears to be original research. It is also speculative - "the idea may have been circulating before the gospels were written." Well, maybe so, but is there any evidence of this? If this idea does indeed exist in the sources, and if there is at least some evidence that this tradition precedes the Matthean Christian interpretation, then there ought to be substantial scholarly sources that argue this. There needs to be evidence that this view is held by notable writers, scholarly texts that advance and defend this view. Unless such citations can be presented in support of this view, it cannot be included in the article. --Rbreen (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found the great Christian Hebraist John Gill holds this very view, so we will soon quote his work, as it is not original research. Is he good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.14.100 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

probably meaning "astronomer"

Bible translations are done by committees of specialists. NRSV, which is considered the most scholarly translation, translates "magi" as "wise men." We shouldn't be gainsaying what is clearly mainstream scholarship. IMO, Matthew got the word "magi" from the Septuagint translation of the Book of Daniel, in which case it wouldn't have anything to do with astronomy or astrology.[7] Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we have two modern scholarly citations which specifically say 'astronomer' or 'astrologer'. 'Wise men' is not very specific (Daniel J. Harrington, Donald P Senior, The Gospel of Matthew, page 42, specifically dismiss 'wise men' as too generic). Brown, in Birth of the Messiah (pages 168-170) looks at several possible sources of the magi; under Babylon (referring to the mentions in Daniel) he describes the local magoi as 'astrologers'. And actually, one of the Book of Daniel references cited in this article mentions them as "the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers." --Rbreen (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

importance in Chritianity

Is there are reason for moving this article from high importance to low importance? It seems unreasonable to me that it now ranks below Blessed Damien Society and Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, both of which are ranked as mid-importance. Kauffner (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While the Star of Bethlehem would be important Xmas or Christmas it is but not a big focus of Chritianity, or even the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew is the only work that talks about the Star of Bethlehem and the whole Gospel of Matthew is only rated high importance.

For example-- I challenge you to find any book in the world with the word "Chritianity" (and not the word "encyclopedia") in the name that talks about the Star of Bethlehem on any page. It is just not a high importance event.

As for Blessed Damien Society, I agree it is low importance to Chritianity-- but I only fix the ones I know about.

As for Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, most Chritian groups like this (it has 5 million members) are or need to be importance = mid. So this includes Chritian groups smaller than Baptist and bigger than Blessed Damien Society.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article must be one of the top Christian articles both as a search term and an item that other articles link to -- and that should count for something. Kauffner (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't! -- not one of the top Chritianity articles that other articles link to and not one of the top Chritianity search terms

Here are all of the non-Christmas Chritianity articles that link to Star of Bethlehem.

• Biblical Magi
• Nativity of Jesus
• Chronology of Jesus
• Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ
• Flight into Egypt
• St. Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace
• Saint Stephen and Herod
• Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church
• Gospel harmony
• Presentation of Jesus at the Temple

There are only 10 such pages, and four of them I added the links for as part of the Gospel harmony page I created. Furthermore, none of these ten pages are above low importance themselves.--Carlaude ^(talk) 08:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see of the ten listed articles, some of them are indeed rated of more than low importance: (Nativity of Jesus, high; Chronology of Jesus, top; Flight into Egypt, mid). Besides, this article is getting over 5000 hits a month: [8] compared to about 7000 for Nativity of Jesus [9], and 7500 for Chronology of Jesus [10]. Not that hits count for everything, but it is clearly of wide interest. The importance scale says of mid-importance articles, "Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject." That seems about right to me. --Rbreen (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

August is low season here. Readership is nearly 10 times higher around Christmas, judging from Google Trends. The Confederation of Christian Trade Unions has been viewed only 153 times in the last month and American Ceylon Mission has been viewed only 209 times, yet they are both rated as "high importance."

I do agree high readership shows (or would show) that Star of Bethlehem in more than low importance-- but it is not more than low importance to Christianity.

If we get a Holiday WikiProject then you can rate it high importance there.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, what's with the "non-Christmas" stuff? Christmas is a top-importance Christianity article -- and it links here. Kauffner (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Christmas page also links to Boxing Day, Christmas cards, and Holly. Do you think they are also high importance articles to Christianity?--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Those articles aren't classified as Christian at all, so this isn't a real issue. I noticed that you have resolved the contradiction here by downgrading Christmas. All I can say is, happy holidays to you! Kauffner (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Brown and Herod

First of all, this "some scholars", "many scholars", "most critical scholars" stuff is not Wiki style. Reviewers have complained about it. Brown didn't do a survey, so this is faux objectivity. It is a rhetorical device that allows Brown or whoever to give an opinion while hiding behind anonymous other scholars.

But giving different opinions equal weight is not Wiki style either, if they have very different levels of support. In this instance, it is clear to anyone familiar with the argument that this view of Luke's opinion is very widely supported, and the views of some of the major NT scholars who have looked at this are given in support. It is misleading the reader to give the two different views as if they held equal credibility in the academic world, because they do not. Saying 'some scholars' is just as misleading. What it actually says in WP:SUBSTANTIATE is that it is acceptable to make such a statement if it can be backed up by 'attributing the claim to a known authority'. That is what the citation is doing - Raymond Brown is certainly one of the leading scholars in the field. In order to make this clearer, I will rewrite this to make it clear that this is referring directly to Brown.

Brown is just one of many writers on this subject, not the spokesman of most scholars. Words like "mistake" and "pious fiction" are judgmental and editorializing. "Most scholars" may or may not agree with Brown on the substance, but I am confident that most would not think that it appropriate to castigate Luke and Matthew in this way. The gospel writers should not be thought of as historians who don't measure up. They lived in a world where prophesy and inspiration were reasons to believe. Kauffner (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think most scholars would agree that although Luke presents himself as writing history, this is subordinate to his theological purpose. There are a number of elements in his Gospel where facts seem to be changed around to fit his overriding theological agenda. It is not necessarily 'castigating' either Luke or Matthew to suggest this. By the standards of ancient historiography, this was fair enough. The problem in this particular instance is that the Luke reference is being taken a historical fact - as a marker by which one can date a specific event. In that sense, Lukes' account appears to be wrong; that is all that is being stated here.--Rbreen (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We can just let the evidence speak for itself and explain that this and that doesn't correspond with claims made by other sources. But it doesn't follow that writing the Gospels was cynical exercise in service of a theological agenda. But if one sincerely believes that Jesus is the messiah and that the messiah must be born in Bethlehem and fulfill other prophecies, one can reasonably accept inspiration that appears to resolve narrative difficulties. Kauffner (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Roger Sinnott's article is one of the most the widely cited in this field, so I certainly think it belongs in. Based on Luke 3:23, 2BC is the traditional date for the birth of Jesus. If you reject everything else in the nativity narrative, it makes no sense to argue Jesus had to have been born under Herod. Kauffner (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a point here - my concern is that opinions are being presented without the slightest attempt to give some realistic assessment of how substantial they are. One of the problems with this article is the tendency of editors to plaster it with every theory they have heard of, without any critical view, and therefore giving the reader no idea of which are realistic and which are far-fetched. Mark Kidger, who I think we both accept as a good source, makes a good assessment of this view and I will put it back in with Kidger's comment when I get a chance.--Rbreen (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"most critical scholars"

However, according to Raymond Brown, most critical scholars believe that Luke was simply mistaken.

This strikes me as a peculiar and unWiki attribution. When this article was up for FA, the first thing reviewers took exception to was presence of phrases like "some scholars", "most scholars", and so forth. Now its attributed to Brown, per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. But WP:SUBSTANTIATE is about attributing an opinion to the opinion-holder. Here we let Brown speak for other people, although he doesn't appear to have taken a formal survey. How about: "Another possibility is that Luke was simply mistaken.(ref)Brown.....(/ref) Kauffner (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is WP:UNDUE. To suggest that this is simply 'another possibility' is to suggest that there are a number of equally popular theories, whereas Brown, who is a renowned New Testament scholar, and how is surely well-informed about the state of scholarship in his area - his extensive bibliography can surely serve as a formal survey of the literature - points out that this is now the view of most scholars. In fact, outside of apologetic literature, the idea that Luke was mistaken is almost universal. That was what the article originally pointed out. In response to the FA criticisms, a citation from an expert in the field has been added; what other way is there to document the position of modern New Testament scholarship? --Rbreen (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "magi"

The major translations use either "wise men" or "magi", so the claim that the word means "astronomer or astrologer" must be considered a minority view at best. The magi connected the birth of a king to the appearance of a star, so perhaps they were astrologers. But that's different from saying that the word magi means astrologer. Kauffner (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The major translations vary: some say 'wise men', some say, 'astrologers', most say simply 'magi'. Wise men is traditional - and since they are said to have arrived by studying the star, it is hardly unreasonable to specify that they are astrologers / astronomers (which at that time meant the same thing. This is hardly a minority view, but for the avoidance of doubt, I will add a few more citations. --Rbreen (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But that's different from what the text we're discussing claims. Unlike Brown, neither Nolland nor Freedman claim that the word "magi" was intended to mean "astrologer" or "astronomer". "Wise men" is used in NRSV, which is an up-to-date translation. What translation uses "astrologer" or "astronomer"? I would suggest moving this text to the "astrology" section and rephrasing it so it does not imply that this is a consensus view. Kauffner (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "magus" is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament for "sorcerer," as in Simon Magus. My university-level textbook refers to the magi as astrologers. They are, after all, following a star. Leadwind (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan

From Flag of Southern Sudan:

the star represents the Star of Bethlehem.

I have not included it because their reference is uncertain. --Error (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Karlis Kaufmanis Explanation

Regarding the undoing, by Rbreen, of the Karlis Kaufmanis paragraph because "this is an astrological interpretation, not astronomical" -- Dr. Kaufmanis was a professor of astronomy, not astrology, and he described in detail the triple conjunction mentioned by Kepler. The Kaufmanis paragraph is worthy of retention because in it, he, a noted modern astronomer, contradicts the article's previous statement that the "conjunctions were not visually impressive, and he also contradicts the statement that the ancient Babylonian almanac did not find the triple conjunctions of any special interest. Regarding the issue of astronomical versus astrological -- at the time the event occurred there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology, so in this case it is difficult to separate the two. Dr. Kaufmanis's lecture on this subject describes both the astronomical and astrological aspects in great detail and specifically points out which parts are fact, i.e. that the astronomical event did occur, and which parts are conjecture, i.e. why people might have interpreted its astrological meaning the way they did. I have modified the paragraph to eliminate the astrological references. Gjm5025 (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church mentions multiple attempts to connect the star in the story to a real astronomical event, so some of this material is worth keeping, even if historians don't take it seriously. Leadwind (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot of space for an obscure explanation that makes no sense. "Jupiter and Saturn in Fish", is just a record of the fact that the two planets were in the same constellation at the same time, hardly an unusual situation. Kauffner (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you listen to Dr. Kaufmanis explain the event, (click on the footnote at the end of the article) you would see that it makes a great deal of sense. Furthermore, the event, that is, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Fish AT THE HELICAL RISE, is unusual and occurs only once every 853 years. Gjm5025 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Luke was wrong

Someone did a bang-up job of documenting how modern scholars don't think Jesus was born during Luke's census, but that's really beside the point on this page. I deleted the section on dating Jesus' birth by the star because it has no academic standing. Here's the big clump of RSs that someone dutifully assembled about Luke's census, in case someone can find a use for it.

According to Raymond Brown, most critical scholars believe that Luke was simply mistaken.<ref>Raymond Brown, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=Co8Mh-GliPIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories]'', (Liturgical Press, 1988), p. 17: "most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke's part."<br>For example, Dunn, James Douglas Grant (2003), ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=G4qpnvoautgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Jesus Remembered]'', Eerdmans. p. 344. ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 Similarly, Erich S. Gruen, 'The expansion of the empire under Augustus', in ''The Cambridge ancient history'' Volume 10, p. 157.<br>[[Geza Vermes]], ''The Nativity'', Penguin 2006, p. 96.<br>[[W. D. Davies]] and [[E. P. Sanders]], 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in ''The Cambridge History of Judaism'' ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984<br>Anthony Harvey, ''A Companion to the New Testament'' (Cambridge University Press 2004), p221.<br>[[John P. Meier|Meier, John P.]], [[John P. Meier#A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus|''A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus'']]. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, p. 213.<br>[[Raymond E. Brown|Brown, Raymond E.]] ''The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke''. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.<br>[[A. N. Sherwin-White]], pp. 166, 167.<br>[[Fergus Millar]] {{cite conference | first = Fergus | last = Millar | authorlink = Fergus Millar | title = Reflections on the trials of Jesus | booktitle = A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. 100) [eds. P.R. Davies and R.T. White] |pages=355–81 |publisher=JSOT Press |year=1990 |location=Sheffield}} repr. in {{citation |last=Millar |first=Fergus |authorlink=Fergus Millar |title=The Greek World, the Jews, and the East |journal= Rome, the Greek World and the East |volume=3 |pages=139–163 |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |year=2006}}</ref>

Leadwind (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it is not possible to attached the star to any actual astronomical event, but I suspect many people coming to this page are interested in the question of whether it can be. That being the case, a section on when Jesus was born is appropriate. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" by Andrew Steinmann dates Herod's reign as 39 to early 1 BC. This is significant because Luke gives the birth of Jesus as 2 BC, which is also the year of Roger Sinnott's "awe-inspiring" conjunction. The Sinnott article is perhaps the most widely cited astronomical explanation. The version of section that was deleted was all screwed up, but I can restore the older version which explains this and doesn't try to use the star to, "date the birth of Jesus". Kauffner (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Find a source for your statements. Most scholars date Herod's reign to 4 BC, and Luke's census took place in AD 6, not AD 2. Leadwind (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as when Herod died, I already gave a link on that. IMO, it is unlikely that the gospel writers knew which king Jesus was born under, so they just improvised. Luke 3:23 says Jesus was "about thirty" when he began to minister, while Luke 3:1 states that at this time it was, "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar". This works out to a birth year of 3 BC or 2 BC. Here is Tertullian: "Let us see, moreover, how in the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus, when he has been reigning for xx and viii years after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ is born."[11] Irenaeus also gives the 41st year of Augustus, which corresponds to 2 BC. So both church fathers presumably calculated based on Luke. Kauffner (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for a citation that says scholars say he was born 6-4 BC. You imply that scholars use the story of the magi to date Jesus' birth, but they don't. Scholars ignore the magi story and place Jesus' birth c 4 BC. Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The 6-4 BC date is from Britannica. The 4 BC date is also based on the nativity narrative. Kauffner (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, my bad. Thanks for adding the citation. As for the census of Quirinius, no on uses that information to date the birth of Jesus. The whole second paragraph is poorly sourced and beside the point. What matters is what contemporary scholars take to be the year of Jesus' birth. Leadwind (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If writers on the star discuss this stuff, then it is relevant -- and arbitrary to remove it. See Molnar here. He discusses all this stuff: Luke's estimates, as well as the census. You don't have to use the census it to date anything to justify discussing it. You can discuss why you can't use it. Sourcing can always be better, but sourcing should not be used a pretext when the real issue is something else. Tertullian's views on this subject were considered authoritative for centuries. That should count for something. Kauffner (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I added back in the sentence at the top of this section. Leadwind (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Recently deleted text

2BC is the traditional date for the birth of Jesus, implied by Luke and given by Tertullian and other church fathers. The material concerning this date has been summarily deleted, although the sources for this material included journal articles. Much of the article addresses the possibility that the story was inspired by something or other that happened at the time of the birth of Jesus, e.g. we mention Roger Sinnott's paper about a conjunction in 2BC. So certainly the dating issue is relevant. Kauffner (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

References in the Book of Mormon

I just undid Rbreen's edit on the basis that the information is relevant. As for how it should be included in the article, I haven't been able to figure out. It seems that its current location is too prevalent, but including it in "Interpretations and Explanations" would also not work because it claims to be another source, not simply an interpretation. Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon was published in 1830 and no serious scholars (at least outside the LDS Church) believe it is a factual description of events or a useful source for the period before the nineteenth century. It is not relevant here. --Rbreen (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To base this argument on the validity of the Book of Mormon is illogical. We could argue that Matthew's account cannot be confirmed and is not a "factual description." This article is not about a scientifically proven event; it is about a widely believed-in event and the various studies that have been done about it and the different opinions that exist about it. The very fact that the Book of Mormon mentions the appearance of this "star" as an actual event is noteworthy. A reference to it deserves to be here. Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the recent edits that have taken place: Information about the Book of Mormon itself should be confined to what is sufficient to gain a basic understanding. Anyone wanting to know more about the book itself should follow the link to its article. This article is about the Star of Bethlehem, not the Book of Mormon. Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added more specific research references to the section to help validate its place there. There was a valid argument that one sentence in the original paragraph was my own original research, so I decided to provide some official sources from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to back up what I was adding this time. Also, what I have added definitely constitutes interpretations and explanations. Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Material sourced to ICR

Appeared to be a summation of info in the section but POV, sourced to ICR.org, a Christian apologetics website. 129.2.129.230 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pious fiction"

When you consider all the heavyweight authors who have expounded on this subject, the sourcing for this phrase is most unimpressive. I didn't find anyone on Google Books using it.[12] So the phrase should not be presented as if it was the common name of a major school of interpretation. I suggest historical fiction as a less POV alternative. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Venus-Jupiter "merger"

The article does already mention the extremely close approach [probably even an overlap?] between Jupiter and Venus in the year 2BC. Roger Sinnott actually wrote a later article supporting that theory - entitled "Computing the Star of Bethlehem", published in Sky & Telescope, volume 72 (1986), on pages 632-635. Sinnott certainly presents a very convincing case, which includes looking at suitable candidates to explain the eclipses alluded to in the Bible.

There were actually two close approaches [of Venus to Jupiter] several months apart; the suggestion is that the first one may have persuaded the Three Wise Men to set off [from somewhere a long way to the east of Bethlehem], with the second one occurring at the time of Jesus's birth. Sinnott also makes the point that a June event ties in well with circumstances described in St Matthew's Gospel.

Superstition may well have played an important role too ... i.e., The King of the Gods was 'coming together' with the Goddess of Love and Marriage! ... so something really important was bound to happen. --DLMcN (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Could the Star have been 4 Vesta?

Re "Another Star of Bethlehem candidate is Uranus, which was visible at various times. However, it probably moved too slowly to be recognized as a planet",

I am curious as to what would rule out the brightest asteroid, 4 Vesta, as the Star.

Vesta is of similar magnitude to Uranus - just visible to the naked eye from a very dark sky when brightest. However, only every four or so years does it reach its brightest (and become theoretically visible before telescopes). If it did so in the years before Jesus' birth, stargazers seeing a previously invisible star might have revealed Jesus' birth.

I would like feedback on whether 4 Vesta is a possible candidate. I discussed it yesterday with some modern stargazers who doubted that Vesta would have been the Star.

luokehao 08:16, 19 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Conflation of astronomical and astrological events

There is considerable confusion in this article regarding the possible influence of astronomical and astrological events. The tradition that the Magi would have actually (visually) seen something in the heavens which caused them to travel in the direction of what they saw, is without rational basis since the Earth's rotation changes the position of everything happening in the heavens, with the exception of the Pole (North) Star. It is possible that a non-local phenomenon actually observed in the sky could be widely considered a portent and cause predictions as a result, but that class of event, i.e., something actually seen in the heavens (as opposed to a calculated configuration of Sun, Moon, planets, and Constellations), should be classified an astronomical occurrence.

Astrological events are a completely different matter. Astrologers of the ancient world were very skilled in charting the paths of the Sun, Moon, and planets through the constellations, and kept careful track of comets once they were observed. With the exception of comets not yet observed, visibility of an astronomical configuration would not have been necessary for astrologers to predict it, and whether it was actually visible (due to its closeness to the Sun, for example) would have had no effect on the meaning ascribed to it by the astrologers. Therefore in the section currently labeled Astrological event, notations of whether the event would have been visible are irrelevant and should be removed, or at least have their irrelevancy explained. Embram (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The magi saw the star in the east, and they came from the east. In other words, they traveled west to Jerusalem. The Mesopotamian astrological records just list which planets were in which constellation, so perhaps not as sophisticated as you are thinking. You need Kepler's equations to make exact predictions about the sky. Kauffner (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Dating

I myself do not think that the story of the Star of Bethlehem was inspired by an event that occurred at the time Jesus was born. But as even a glance at the posts above confirms, many readers do think about the issue this way. So I think a discussion of when Jesus was born is relevant. The fact that the nativity was traditionally dated as 2BC is certainly significant to Sinnott's theory. Kauffner (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant clause

Astronomer Michael R. Molnar has proposed a link between the Star of Bethlehem and a double occultation of Jupiter by the moon on March 20 and April 17 of 6 BC in Aries, particularly the second occultation on April 17.[48] The events were quite close to the sun and would have been difficult to observe, even with a small telescope,[49] which had not yet been invented.

The final clause is irrelevant, given that the Antikythera mechanism had been invented at least a century earlier. While we have only the one, it does not mean others where not available, which could easily depict the occultations. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Antimatter meteor theory

This content:

Philip M. Papaelias suggested that an antimatter meteor which had been transformed into a ball lightning after the entrance in the atmosphere can be a reasonable explanation, since hypotheses such as a comet, a straight line configuration of two or three planets, a supernova explosion or any other known celestial body can not designate any place on Earth and can not stay over the place where Jesus was. The city and the time of the Jesus' birth were known to the three wise men from Daniel and his seventy weeks prophecy. What remained to be found was the exact location in the city, which had been revealed to the magi by the movement of the ball lightning.

has been repeatedly added to the article over the past few days by Fpapael11 (talk · contribs) and several IPs. Each time, it has been reverted for various reasons such as original research and lack of reliable sources. Editor - you will need to gain consensus that this content is appropriate, and this page is the place to state your case. However, if you continue to add the content without discussion, you will be blocked from editing here.  —SMALLJIM  16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External link to be added

Hello,

My intention is to add the following external link:

• Leushuis, J.G.A.M. drs. Star of Bethlehem: NOT an astronomical phenomenon Usenet article of 1991, resulting in contributions of NASA and the Max Plank institute in Germany, and summarizing newspaper article of 2004

The newspaper article is

Star of Bethlehem: NOT an astronomical phenomenon

6th of January we celebrate the feast of Epiphany, when a star led a number of Wise Men from the East to a stable in Bethlehem, where the little child Jesus was just born. In many books, newspapers, radio and t.v. the Star of Bethlehem is "explained" by saying that it was an astronomical phenomenon, like a planetary conjunction, nova, zodiac light, or whatever. If one thinks a little bit, one can easily refute this all: the whole sky is turning around during 24 hours and if one travels after something that turns around then one makes circles in the landscape, not something Wise Men would do, would they? The only thing that stands still is the polestar, but that stands in the north. Moreover the Wise went first to Jerusalem in the west and after that to Bethlehem, which still lies right to the south of Jerusalem. "And lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was" says the Bible. No astronomical phenomenon, planets, sun, moon, star, novae, comets, meteors, polar or zodiac light travels in front of someone, first to the west and after that to the south and then stands still above a certain place. The Star of Bethlehem is not a historical natural phenomenon but a historical miracle of God, that testifies of the existence of God. We are not explaining the ascension of Jesus either by saying that in those days there were strong uplifting winds in Palestine, are we?

The above text was placed as a letter to the editor in the Dutch edition of the Metro newspaper of 6 January 2004. Another version appeared in the Katholiek Nieuwsblad in that month. More publications will follow, suggestions are welcome.

Hereafter follows an article that was posted on 25th October 1991 in some Usenet newsgroups. The article can be found on the Internet with Google in Groups. The article does not yet use the fact that Bethlehem lies to the south of Jerusalem so the Star of Bethlehem appeared first in the west and after that in the south. Still, compliments for the article are received from among others NASA in America and the Max Planck institute in Germany.

Go to Google Groups Home Groups Advanced Groups Search Preferences Groups Help

Viewing message <Oct.25.01.06.21.1991.29967@dumas.rutgers.edu> Team Encounter Solar Sail • New solar sail design will power NASA and NOAA payloads. • www.teamencounter.com Sponsored Links Astrobiology Journal • origin of life, planetary science Complimentary sample issue online • www.journals.cambridge.org/jid_IJA Search Result 1 From: Han Leushuis (jgamleus@praxis.cs.ruu.nl) Subject: the Star of Bethlehem View: Complete Thread (3 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Date: 1991-10-25 09:47:38 PST

[ This article is posted to soc.religion.christian, sci.astro & bit.listserv.christia, but something goes wrong with multiple newsgroups on one line. ]

In many theological magazines, t.v. programmes and net debates it is said nowadays that the Star of Bethlehem was an astronomical phenomenon, such as a planetary conjunction or whatever.

If you have a little feeling for astronomy, you can conclude that this is nonsense (to put it mildly):

- if the star of Bethlehem was a planetary conjunction, then the star was located in the neigbourhoud of the ecliptic. That is where all the planets in our solar system are located and where the sun is moving in the sky.

The ecliptic is one of the fastest moving areas of the sky, day and night.

Suppose the Three Wise followed the planetary conjunction:

It doesn't matter whether they went at day or at night: EVERY planetary phenomenon rises in the EAST (day or night), has it's culmination (highest point) in the SOUTH and goes under in the WEST.

It's culmination is in the SOUTH if you are on the northern hemisphere, where the Three Wise were (the Middle East has a northern latitude of about 30 degrees), and in the NORTH if you are on the southern hemisphere. If you are somewhere between 23 1/2 degree north and south of our aequator, the culmination of the conjunction is RIGHT ABOVE you.

So, if you start to follow this phenomenon when it rises in the east, you travel to the EAST, changing your direction of travelling slowly to the SOUTH, when the conjunction reaches it highest point, after which you will bend slowly to the WEST, where the conjunction goes under.

If you do this several days, you will find yourself having made half-circles, with a general direction of SOUTH.

Not a very efficient way of travelling, is it?

(you get the same effect if you follow the sun)

Now, this seems not to be the way how the Three Wise have travelled:

- first, they were WISE men, who don't travel in half-circles. - second, the bible says they came from the East, which means they travelled to the WEST (unless they have travelled very far), not to the SOUTH. - third, even having reached Bethlehem, travelling in the above described fashion, they would PASS Bethlehem since a planetary conjunction doesn't mention that this is the point to look for. The bible says the star STOPPED above the place where Jesus was born.

- if the Star or Bethlehem was not a planetary conjunction, but an astronomical phenomenon OUTSIDE our solar system, it can have appeared in any part of the sky.

You know that all celestial objects in the northern part of the sky seem to turn around the polar star during the 24 hours of the day, due to the rotation of the earth.

The polar star is the only object that has a "fixed" position in the northern sky, the southern sky also has a "fixed point" but there is no bright object in it.

All other objects in the sky move during 24 hours along the sky. Objects close to the fixed points slowly, object on the aequator of the sky the fastest. Objects on the ecliptic, which has an angle of only 23 1/2 degree with the aequator of the sky, move also, like the planets and the sun, quite fast.

So, wherever the astronomical object was located in the sky, following it, gives you a circle or part of a circle as your route in the countryside.

NO WAY these wise men have done this.

If the Star of Bethlehem was not a moving point but the polar star, then the wise men travelled NORTH instead of WEST and got stuck in some Russian Empire or so. Which they didn't, according to the bible, as they reached Bethlehem.

- if the Star of Bethlehem was a comet, often depicted so in paintings and drawings, the comet was also a - in 24 hours - moving object in the sky, like the planets and the sun.

So, circles again.

Unless it came so close to earth, that its speed along the sky was as high as the rotation speed of the earth, in which case it had reached the well known geo-stationary distance to earth, about 36,000 km of the earth's surface. This is quite close for a comet, about 1/10th of the distance of the moon to the earth's surface.

You can't keep this up as a comet for more than a very short part of 24 hours, after which you start to move again along the sky during the day and/or night.

So, circles again.

Unless the comet finds itself trapped in a geo-stationary orbit.

Now the east-west position is fixed, but it can move back and forth in north-south direction.

Now you CAN have a general direction to the west, but you still go zig-zag.

Unless it is an aequatorial geostationary orbit, in which case the celestial object really stands still during the day and night.

When the comet is in such a position on the geo-stationary orbit that the comet is from the Three Wise Men's point of view to the west, then this could theoretically be the Star of Bethlehem.

However, practically, this will not have been the case:

- first, at a northern latitude of some 30 degrees, the comet doesn't STOP above the place Jesus was born, as the bible mentions. It gradually reaches it's highest point as you travel west, but it still culminates in the SOUTH, not ABOVE any place. And if you try to find the place on your route where this comet reaches it's highest point, you can as well stop anywhere in the Middle East. Except if you have precision astronomical instruments, which the bible doesn't mention. - second, the effects of a comet approaching earth so close are already so desastrous that a whole lot more people go travelling on earth, besides the Three Wise Men. The bible doesn't mention this.

- if the Star of Bethlehem was a meteor, a stone entering the earth's atmosphere, then it certainly stopped, but the speed with which it was visible will have been so high that these wise men would not have had the time to blink with their eyes.

Concluding, the Star of Bethlehem was not an astronomical phenomenon.

The bible says "the star travelled before the Three Wise Men and stood still above the place Jesus was born".

In my opinion, the Star of Bethlehem was an object "hand-made" by God, a "miracle" for us normal people, and especially made to direct the Wise and only the Wise through the Middle East to the place Jesus was born.

There are many "miracles" in the bible nowadays explained by normal scientific phenomena.

In my opinion, you should be aware of this and not have yourself fooled. These normal scientific explanations take away the power of events only God can bring about, take away the power of God, take away God.

It starts with applying science to real miracles brought about by God. It ends with saying that you should not take the resurrection of Jesus Christ literally, that this can't happen really of course, but that you should interpret it symbolically, that it stands for something else that happened, as I've heard a modern Catholic priest say in a church.

A miracle is a miracle, God is God. I hope the above example, all of which you can think of in a few minutes, convinces you of this, as it convinced me.

Like to hear your reaction, greetings, Han.

Student computer science, physics & astronomy Serbo-Croatian State University of Utrecht University of Amsterdam Netherlands Netherlands

Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services & Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help

©2003 Google

Verwijzingen:

Star of Bethlehem Bibliography Stern von Bethlehem, gives backgrounds from where the theory, that the Star of Bethlehem was an astronomical phenomenon, came from (German).

So far, the article. As a student in astronomy I felt this had to be written. The original Usenet and newspaper articles cannot be found on the web any more (quotations though), so they are repeated on a personal web page, as more links in the external links section are. One cannot assume that everyone agrees with its content, but all astronomical and biblical observations are easily verifiable.

Best regards,

Mr. Leushuis

Jgamleus (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:ELNO: "Links normally to be avoided... Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." A link to your personal web page is entirely unjustified. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of contributor's own research - and the fact that it apparently got published on the letter pages of a newspaper or two makes no difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Andromeda nearly aloft in Jesus' time

I was all set to debunk the idea that the Star of Bethlehem could have been a supernova or hypernova in the Andromeda Galaxy. Today, as a result of precession of the equinoxes, the Andromeda Galaxy is too far north to have any star at the latitude of Bethlehem. In Jesus' day it got very close to the zenith.

Possible but hardly definitive. Pbrower2a (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Misleading and Outdated Information

The actual identity and place of the Bethlehem star has already been discovered and verified scientifically, confirmed by NASA and agreed upon by millions of people (search for Bethlehem Star Project)

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/starry-dance/westward-leading/

I just wish to underscore how this article is so woefully outdated especially concerning the facts and what's worse is that there's even a "pious invention" section present yet the vast scholarship of the the Bethlehem Star and the Star Project is utterly ignored. This gives a false perception that the Bethlehem star was mythological when in fact it was a real astronomical event, as real as the lunar eclipse during Christ's crucifixion and the solar eclipse during his baptism. If this is not rectified soon, I will be complaining.

T.Y.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Any article without information about the use of astronomy software has become outdated. Furthermore, there is a need for information about the specifics found in the Bible. The "Pious Invention" section, on the other hand, is also needed. If anything, it should be strengthened. There need to be areas that refute both the scientific and the biblical evidence to ensure balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Leluia81 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As already stated, the nativity is a later addition to the story. The star is a mythical portend necessary for pagan and helenist acceptance of the new religion. Looking for the star is pointless as it never existed.

Bias

It is vital to have a section that gives the "Pious Fiction" (minus-minus) perspective, that the Star is not a real event and was fabricated by religious people. It is just as necessary to have a section that gives the opposite perspective, that it was a real event and was accurately written about in the scriptures; that there was a convergence of science and scriptures (plus-plus). The section by that name should be at the same level(heading) as the Pious Fiction section. However, the Pious Fiction section is not well-referenced. So I thought I would wait until it is improved. This has apparently created confusion. The Table of Contents reflects the status quo; it does not represent the finest organization: It is still a work in progress. Edits that pare down referenced content to create sections of the same size do not create an unbiased article. This article is not yet either well-referenced or comprehensive and much can be done to improve it still. Al Leluia81 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the big picture article thinking you are bringing to this article, and the value you have expressed and I'd like to help work on the page at large. You are correct that my edit has issues - I'm willing to return to status quo and hash it out line by line. I have a number of counterpoints I want to raise to your questions and assertions so far, but let's work out the basics: How do we confer titles to descriptions of astronomical events? I am deeply troubled that ANY section received the title Convergence of Science and Scriptures. This is disturbing because it's the fallacy of begging the question - a title that claims the following IS the convergence of science and scriptures, as if the others aren't. Frankly, I think the 7 BCE Helical Rising of Jupiter and Saturn passes muster better than the others - but I won't ask us to title it as the convergence section because such a title confers priveledge and incurs bias.

If we are able to agree that the same rules of presentation and explanation should apply to all explanations, I think we'll have an easy time arriving at a solid consensus at how this section should read, and we'll be ablessed to make the arice as a whole better.Signaj90 (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. I see your point about the Convergence title being applied to one set of observations. One reason I used that is that it is a counterpoint to Pious Fiction, and also because of the nine characteristics Larson found that appear to be fulfilled in the 3-2 BC events. I don't view the events as being mutually exclusive (the 7 BC events may still have meaningful symbolic value even if later events were actually closer to the birth) so maybe the question is how to incorporate that idea into every possibility: what happened, how has it been interpreted and by whom, and in what way(s) does it possibly fulfill what is in the book of Matthew? I think the article needs to be restructured. You ask, "How do we confer titles to descriptions of astronomical events?" Where it comes to what is currently called "Regulus, Jupiter and Venus", Larson, Chester, Martin independently noted that in September 3 BC there was a woman clothed with the sun and the moon at her feet with the rising of Virgo at the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah; so we are dealing with constellations (Leo and Virgo) in addition to one fixed and two wandering stars.Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a title of A. "Leo, Virgo, Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus at Rosh Hashanah", B. "Leo, Virgo, Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus", C. "Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus", or D. some other title for this section? On another subject, it seems to me that the section on Matthew's narrative is the best place for a discussion of the characteristics of the star. How are those nine characteristics noted there? Is that satisfactory, or would you prefer they be addressed differently? Lastly, perhaps it would be productive to avoid polarized "all or nothing" thinking in the pious fiction section - perhaps it was all invented; perhaps Matthew's narrative was right in the essentials (Magi arriving in Jerusalem and being redirected) with other elements being piously inserted (standing of the star over Bethlehem, massacre of the infants). Signaj90 (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am suggesting "D"; some other title. Using descriptive terms of astronomical events is both not entirely accurate and creates challenges for readers. If I had my choice, I would choose headings using chronology and the September 3 BC events would be titled "Events of 3 BC".

I think the section "Matthew's narrative" is best kept as an introduction for readers to help ensure they have the basics, and would not be the place for comments or interpretations or excessive details. As the reader continues they will be exposed to ideas about that story and when they get the closer examination provided by Frederick Larson they will be better able to understand it. Placing that information near the beginning would be providing them with a conclusion and would also require putting other people's ideas into that introductory passage. Using progressive revelation will let information unfold and keep it interesting and easier to read.

If I am reading you right, you may be wondering if the "Pious fiction" section is "all or nothing", thinking and so we might omit it in favor of the views that are between "the Star of Bethlehem was a myth" and "the Star of Bethlehem was both accurately in the scriptures and a real astronomical occurrence." I will rephrase that as, "Would it be better to omit the 'Pious fiction' section or tone it down in favor of moderate (or middle) views?" That may or may not be what you mean, but I will answer it. When there are 4 possibilities I will call ++, +-, -+, and --, there is no reason to a priori consider the +- and -+ opinions as being more valid than the other two positions, or to call either or both of the other two positions (++ and --) "all or nothing" reasoning. Here is the statement, "Our sun is hot and gives off light." That is the ++ position. The -- would be, "Our sun is not hot and does not give off light". The +- would be, "Our sun is hot but does not give off light." The -+ would be "Our sun is not hot but does give off light." The middle positions are not more likely to be true simply because they are middle positions, simply based on reasoning. The "Pious fiction" idea that the Star is neither scientifically based (-) nor religiously accurate (-) would be correct if it is true; so likewise the ++ position. Neither is "all or nothing" thinking in itself. An example of that kind of thinking is if someone gave a person a car and the gift recipient became angry because they did not also get a lifetime of repairs and gasoline along with it. Another editor (first comment in the "Misleading and Outdated Information" section) expressed concerns about having a "pious invention" section and I disagreed, and the topic may come up again, and so it may as well be addressed here, in the Bias section, even if I did not interpret what you meant correctly.

Regardless, as Wikipedians our obligation is to present this topic as it is with each of its possibilities and its evidence as accurately as possible, and one of the explanations is the idea that the Star of Bethlehem is a myth. It is not part of our task to choose what they should think, much less what they should believe.Al Leluia81 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was not interested in deleting the pious fiction section and am not. My suggestion was about adding extra possibilities to the existing discussion - expansion of the existing material.

'Events of 3 BC' is too big a title to me. Perhaps there are other astronomical events of note that we're unaware of? I'd favor more specificity. However, as no other events being discussed on the page happen during 3 BC, it's something I can live with.

I have noticed that the section entitled 'Planetary Conjunction' includes a description of the events of the section we have been discussing. It also includes a valuable counterpoint about the date of Herod's death being 4 BC. This double discussion seems problematic.

Also in the planetary conjuction section, the discussion of Karlis Kaufmanis' suggestion is best adapted into the Heliacal rising section.

I strongly suggest we dismantle this section and add the necessary components to the other two sections.Signaj90 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Events of 3 BC" is not an abnormally long title. It is indeed shorter than anything you have suggested. Yes, there are many events in 3 BC. "Planetary conjunction" will require considerable restructuring. It is better left alone at this time. The date of Herod's death will reappear and reappear, and that is part of this topic. Open a separate section for Helical rising or Planetary conjunction if you like; this is the "Bias" section. I'm not clear on which section you are referring to as needing "dismantling" "Planetary conjunction" or "Helical rising". After each section is in better order, restructuring will become simpler.Al Leluia81 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not suggesting "Events of 3 BC" was *long* but rather *broad in scope*. Again, I can live with it. Signaj90 (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pious Fiction Work Area

An immediate area of work for the pious fiction section is the issue that Dio Cassius (who is cited as writing a line similar to a line in the gospel of Matthew) is implied to be a source who inspired Matthew's writing. In fact, Dio Cassius wrote in the late 2nd century - 100 years later than the majority view of Matthew's authorship. Furthermore, while the visit of the Armenian king to Rome may indeed have gotten people's attention, there is no research cited. At best, it is a suggestive correlation, which could be no more than a possibility. I'd like to see the deletion of "Ancient historian Dio Cassius wrote that, "The King did not return by the route he had followed in coming,"[36] a line echoed in Matthew's account.[37]" functional citations of the other sections as the existing citation is of an article I cannot find in the online journal.Signaj90 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct: they claim that Matthew "echoed" Dio Cassius as if implying or accusing that Matthew took the information from him. Yet Dio Cassius wasn't even born at the time when Matthew wrote. Dio Cassius, the Roman historian was born about 150 AD (http://www.britannica.com/biography/Dio-Cassius) and Jesus died (according to Larson and many others) on April 3, 33 AD, at the time of the lunar eclipse at 3pm on Nissan 14, the day of the Passover, which was on a Friday, or at least in the first century. Matthew wrote later. Yes, this "pious fiction" claim is a poor argument. But it stands. It should never be deleted. That is their claim. It has negative support. Accusing someone of imitating material from someone who had not written it since he had not been born yet and would not be born yet for over a hundred years (after the death of Christ), is not even a rational argument. However, deletion worsens the problem. The point is not whether it is true or false, the point is that it is an argument that is made and it is referenced. It needs to be addressed, however, that Dio Cassius was born after Matthew wrote, also with referenced material. Even if you deleted it, someone reading the section who has heard the accusation that Matthew "borrowed" from someone they may never have heard of before, would not have his or her questions answered in coming to this articles, and other editors who claim this position would simply add it back in. The solution is to add referenced material about the birth of Dio Cassius (versus the time when Matthew wrote) so a reader who hears that argument will have objective information and will have heard from both sides. It is as if someone said Marco Polo got his ideas from the current Queen of England. Just be objective about it and add in missing information instead of deletion. When a similar problem exists in other "pious fiction" arguments, leave the referenced material alone and simply use the referenced material to add the missing information.Al Leluia81 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll proceed with your suggestion... but I'm confused. Are you suggesting there is no basis for deleting arguments from wikipedia? Ever? Is that on Wikipedia's guidelines somewhere? I doubt it is. Please explain. Signaj90 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• See Core Content Policies: WP:CCPOL. See also WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, and guideline WP:SIZE and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. We have in place an argument that is made and is verifiable. It is referenced. Choosing not to include it on the grounds that it is, in someone's opinion, a poor argument would violate both No Original Research and Neutrality. WP:REMOVAL is an essay, not a policy or guideline, with numerous links.Al Leluia81 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)