The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1872-05-30
THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM.

in the London papers respecting the ma
ture of the light, or rather luminous ap
pearance called "star," which guided the
wise men to Bethlehem, as narrated in the
second chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel.
The controversy is by no means q new
one indeed it has furnished subject for
speculation and philosophical investiga
tion for eighteen hundred years ; but it
seems to have sprung up into vitality
again just now, for some reason or other
To those who accept the Scriptural nara
tive literally, and believe in its plenary
inspiration, such discussion may seem
irreverent, if not profane yet it has been
entered upon in all seriousness, and with
the conviction that whatever throws light
upon the true meaning of the phenomena
recorded in the Bible, promotes reverence
of that volume. In this, all people who
accept the Holy Sculptures are interested !;
go are all Christians in ascertaining the
exact date of the birth of the Savior-and
one of the objects Of this controversy is
to decide that.
Those who are unfamiliar with such
topics will perhaps be surprised at the
| number of explanations given respecting
1.-THE Star of Bethlehem" There are no
fewer then ten hypothesis Ohere may be
more, however,, and these are : 1. That
| it was literally star out of the heavenly
| bodies, and selected for the purpose of
guiding the wise men. 2. That it was a
new star created expressly. 3. That it
was an old star blazing forth ;nto sudden
brllliancy, as has happened more than
once. 4. That it was one OF the planets
5. That it was conjunction ofthe planets.
| s. That it was comet. Z. That it was a
meteor 8. That it was atmospheric H.
minosity. 8. That it was an angel. 10.
That it was celestial manifestation. An
Gent legends faver the last Two, but mod
ern science prefers to deal with the astro-
nomical aspects of the question, and some
OF these are interesting enough.
| The idea of an actual star being en-
| ployed ia the manifestation is by it at
once discarded. A star is an immense sun
or center of planetary system, placed at
an inconceivable distance from the globe,
and to move it out of its orbit would pro-
duce changes of such magnitude in the
system of the universe as to require Sc
ries of MIRACLES, greater far than the Star
of Bethlehem. For this reason science
rejects the literal Interpretation. Was it
then sudden stellar eruption, similar to
that witnessed by Tycho B-ahe, in 1879,
when star appeared suddenly,and swell,
ed out to such extraordinary magnitude
and brilliancy that it was visible al noon !;
this body maintained its splendor for sew
enteen months, then died out, and has
never shone forth since. Another instance
occurred in 1904, third in 1870, when
the star faded out and revived several
times during two years and then vanished;
fourth occurred in 1866, when a star of
the ninth magnitude rose within u few
hours to the second magnitude, or about
one hundred times it's original brightness,
and remained visible, though gradually
diminishing, about four months.
Some such phenomenon may have been
witnessed by the wise men, 1t could not
have been one of the planets, although
the narrative says, 'the star went before
them,' which means only that it appar-
emily did so, just as the sun is SAID to
move, when, In reality, it remains still and
| it is the earth which moves. Was it Il
conjunction of planets? This was KEEP
ler's theory, adopted by the learned chro
nologist, DR.. Ideler, of Berlin, who calcu-
lated the places of the larger planets back
to the time of the Nativity, to determine
whether there was conjunction at that
time; he found that In the year Z B. C.
there was one between Jupiter and Sat.
urn but his calculations were subsequent
| ly revised by Professors Pritchard and
| Maskelyn, and found 20 be faulty, the
two planets not having approached each
other nearer than two lunor diameters.
| They must therefore have appeared as two
stars, and thus disposes of the conjunction
theory. Was it, then, a comet? Many
have supp osed that it was.
The Chinese astronomers, whose obser
vations are noted for their accuracy, and
extend back thousands of years record
that a bright comet did appear in the
yeaa 4, B. C, aud remained visible seventy
days days during the vernal equinox.
This is a curious feet, and it corryb crates
the assertion made by most chronologers,
that the Navitity occurred four years be
fore the time usually assigned to it, 50
that we should not be in A. d., 1876, in
stead of 1879.
The comet theory is the most feasible
of all. One authority asserts that "the
star was meteOric phenomenon at a SAT
ficient elevation in the atmosphere, to be
taken by the uneducated eye for q star,
and not too high tU serve us guide;that
it's motion was slow enough to suit the
rate of travelling common at that day !;
and that its appearance was net sufficient
ly conspicuous to attract the attention Of
any but those who were specially inform
ed as to its object" Why not accept it
as simple miracle, then? Surely, such
would-be scientific explanation as this
is ridiculous.
No luminous rnstior, has ever yet been