Customer Reviews

The Star That Astonished the World

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Over 600 planetariums around the world have been showing the new discoveries recorded in this 280 page book. This book identifies what the real star of the Wise Men was, it also reveals the precise date and time of day when Jesus was born. This surprising information comes directly from the New Testament. The research is backed up with extensive reference to Roman and Jewish records and gives the astronomical data that can make the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus to be very understandable and also majestic beyond compare. There were planetary conjunctions that happened in the heavens in the period when Jesus was born (3 to 2 BC) about which modern astronomers have expressed awe and astonishment. This is one book that all people interested in science and the Bible should have. Although a professional scholar, Ernest L. Martin's writing style is easy to read and understand.  A previous review mentions Herod's death asa major obstacle. This obstacle is made clear in this book.
Potential readers include: those interested in astronomy, astrology, early Roman history, mainline Christianity, students of Bible Chronology and Prophecy, religious teachers and university professors.

Take a simple question like, "Who were the Magi?" Put it to someone like Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D. Turn him loose to do the research. Now you can take a few minutes and read what is only a gleaning of four chapters on the subject.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The simple teaching of the Gospel of Matthew states that astrologers came from the eastern part of the world to pay homage to the newborn "King of the Jews" and to present him with the customary gifts that were generally accorded to new kings. The word that was used to describe them was "Magi." This was a title and in the 1st century it signified that they were professional astrologers.

We are told by the ancient historian Herodotus that they were originally one of the six tribes of the Medes, a priestly caste similar to the Levites among the Israelites. In their early history their occupation was to provide the kings of the Medes, Persians and Babylonians with what they considered to be divine information about the daily matters involving government affairs. Their role in interpreting divine matters for kings and rulers is mentioned in the Bible. The prophet Daniel in the time of King Nebuchadnezzar became the "master of the magicians [master of the Magi], astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers." (Dan 5:11). The prophet Jeremiah mentioned that a chief authority among the Magi was called the Rab-Mag. (Jer 39:3, 13 RSV).

The prophet Daniel most likely was assigned to this high office. Perhaps the fraternization of Daniel with the early Magi in Babylon helps to explain why those in the Magian profession expected a Jewish king to arrive near the end of the 1st century. This is the very thing that Daniel prophesied would happen. Recall that Daniel prophesied the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the Babylonians destroyed it in the 6th century B.C. He also said that 490 years would pass from a command to rebuild Jerusalem until a world-embracing messianic kingdom would emerge on the earth in the region of Palestine (Dan 9:24-27).

Josephus, the Jewish historian [from the end] of the 1st century, mentioned a conviction among the Jews that this prophecy of Daniel would have its fulfillment within the 1st century. [He] said that it was shown in the "sacred writings that about that time one from their country [Judea] should become governor of the habitable earth." (Josephus, War VI.313)

There can be no doubt that the Magi in Mesopotamia would have been aware of these prophetic indications among the Jews. In fact, scholars today are able to see that there was a great deal of mingling of beliefs between the Jews and the Magi at this period of time. This was because of their connections with one another since the 6th century B.C.

Even the Romans were aware of the prophecies of Daniel. Suetonius in the early 2nd century said, "A firm belief had long prevailed through the east that it was destined for the empire of the world at that time to be given to someone who should go forth from Judea." (Suetonius, Vespasian, 4).

The Roman Emperor Nero was advised by one or two of his court astrologers: it was prudent for him to move his seat of empire to Jerusalem because that city was then destined to become the capital of the world. (Suetonius, Nero, 40)

All of these widespread beliefs were based on the prophecies of Daniel. Since Jewish people lived in all areas of the Roman and Parthian worlds, their national aspirations would have been well known. (Josephus, Antiquities XI.133; War II.398; VII.43).

Jews in the 1st century respected the Magi. The Jewish philosopher by the name of Philo, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt during the time of Jesus, spoke of the Magi with warm praise. Philo said they were men who gave themselves to the study of the laws of nature and that they contemplated on the divine perfections. To Philo they were worthy of being counselors of kings. (Philo, Quo. Probus Liber, 74).

The main occupation of the Magi was their interpretation of things they considered divine. They principally dealt with the evaluation of dreams, visions and astronomical signs. Astrological interpretation was of special importance to them. The temple of Belus in the city of Babylon was in their care. In particular, they were advisors to kings and princes.

Though Herod would have had his own court astrologers, he must have paid particular attention to what the respected Magian professionals from the east had to say about a newborn Jewish king. Their interpretations were especially sought out by prominent people because of the Magian influence in the royal courts of the east. In fact, the Magi were in such high regard in Parthia that some even became kings. Even the Magi who came to Jesus were also considered as being "princes" or "kings" in some early accounts. But when the Magi came to Jerusalem, they arrived to do homage to the new Jewish king and to give gifts to him. In the next century, Tiridates of the order of the Magi did the same thing when he visited the emperor Nero. It is no wonder that the arrival of such Magi caused great interest to Herod and Jerusalem.

In explaining to King Herod why they came to do homage to the new Jewish king, the Magi said, "We saw his star...." The Greek denotes it wasn't merely "in the east" that the Magi observed it. [So, our version of Matthew's Gospel is accurate: "We saw his star at its rising" (Mt 2:2) or "when it rose."]

Scholars realize that the Greek words employed by Matthew to record this event were the ordinary ones then used in Greek literature to describe the regular rising of the stars or planets. The plain meaning of the words suggest that the Magi had witnessed a "star" rise above the eastern horizon when making their normal pre-dawn observations of the heavens.

It was one "star" that intrigued them, though it must have been in some unusual relationship or aspect with other celestial bodies. The Magi were so impressed that they made their long, difficult journey to Jerusalem with costly gifts to present to the new king. After hearing their account, King Herod and all Jerusalem were equally persuaded that the "star" was significant.

Herod would have been aware of the outstanding celestial displays that had occurred from May 3 B.C. to August 2 B.C. His own court astrologers would certainly have given him their interpretations of these remarkable signs. But Herod wanted more information. Since the various nations and racial groups had different standards for astrological interpretations, Herod would have wanted to know the Magian version of what the signs were indicating.

Herod and all Jerusalem would hardly have been troubled by what they considered impostors. But if the Magi had come from the court of the Parthian kings who employed Magi in the religious affairs of their government, or from the respected Magian colleges of the east, it would have been a different matter in the view of Herod and the Jewish authorities.

The Magi left him in no doubt about their interpretations. They were so certain of their evaluations that they made a long journey to Jerusalem to give rich gifts to the newborn king. So important was this child to them that they even came as well to give him homage. This meant that they recognized the newborn as a personage of special significance. This is what Matthew in the New Testament related.
Like the Romans sixty years before, Herod was so convinced of the interpretations of the Magi that he killed the boy babies in and around Bethlehem to prevent this newborn "king" from being reared to adulthood. Herod was astonished by the appearance of this "star" and he was persuaded that the "Star of the Magi" was significant and important.
-------------------------------------------------------------

What did they see? First, remember: the position of the planets and stars can be calculated with accuracy back through history. Remember also some of the many celestial Messianic references found in Scripture that would have been known at that time: "A star shall advance from Jacob, and a staff shall rise from Israel" (Num 24:17) "Judah, like a lion's whelp, you have grown up on prey, my son. He crouches like a lion ... the king of beasts ... the scepter shall never depart from Judah" (Gen 49:9-10). "The lion of the tribe of Judah" (Rev 5:5). "I am the root and offspring of David, the bright morning star" (Rev 22:16).

Computations, now used in planetariums, show that, on August 12th, 3 B.C., Jupiter rose as a morning star above the eastern horizon which soon came into conjunction with Venus. This was the beginning of a journey in which six conjunctions of Jupiter with other planets and the "royal star" Regulus, in Leo (the Lion, the constellation of Judah), would take place. On September 14th, 3 B.C., moved to unite with Regulus (this was repeated two more times). The result, on August 27th, 2 B.C., would be the visual planetary union of Mars, Venus (the Mother), and Mercury (the Messenger) with Jupiter. Jupiter would soon leave the "massing" and continue in its westward motion. It would have been visible to the Magi each morning, as it "went ahead of them" ["preceded them" (Mt 2:9)]. Once on the same elliptical path as the Earth, it would have "appeared" to have stopped or seemed "stationary" for about six days. On December 25th, 2 B.C., Jupiter would have "stopped" (Mt 2:9) precisely over Bethlehem (68o above the southern horizon) and could have been witnessed from Jerusalem. A remarkable circumstance is that when Jupiter (the King planet), was visibly "stationary," it would have appeared to an observer to have stopped in the abdomen (womb) region of the constellation Virgo (the Virgin). Jesus would have been approximately two years old now (born early 3 B.C.). Herod therefore chose those boys two and under to be slaughtered.

Fascinating, must read book, for the curious, that supports this and other Biblical accounts.

While the problem of the Star of Bethlehem is not yet solved, Martin's book come up with a different date for Christ's birth. Everything depends on the death of Herod. He says that it was not in the year 4 b.C., as almost everybody states. He gives some good reasons, but other authors disagree with him. Anyway, it is a valuable book for those who are interested in the topic. Any paper on the Star of Bethlehem now mentions it as a reference. I appreciate the effort of analizing the Gospel looking for historical evidence. I'm even thinking of translating it into Italian...

When in Jerusalem about 8 years ago I read an article in the Jerusalem post based on Martin's findings. I was fascintated by the theory, and followed it up as best as I was able, not being as familiar with the science as many might be. What I find particularly fascinating is the reference to Herod's death in 1BC, which of course stands out from the scholarly cohort. When it comes down to it the dating of Herod's death stems from a battle, the dating of which the Roman historian Tacitus gives differently from other scholars. So who is right. Minorities have not always been wrong. All in all, a fascinating study amongst many, though what the 'truth' is we see as yet "but through a glass darkly".

This is a great book. In particular, it recognizes the astronomical synchronism given in Revelation 12:1-3. The woman (virgo) with the sun in it, and the moon under her feet is an alignment that happens only in September, and in the year of the birth of Messiah, this was September 11 in 3 B.C., the year agreed on by the majority of ante-Nicene fathers.
The moon that was under the feet of Virgo on Sept 11, 3.C. was the new moon of the 7th month, or the Yom Teruah (Feast of Trumpets). This is when Christ was born, not December, as Martin ably demonstrates with the true Star of Bethlehem. No other theory even comes close to explaining the facts as Martin does, not even Raymond Brown, who by the way is a Jesuit Priest (S.J.), and is theologically committed to rejecting any Christian observance of biblical feasts. Messianic Jews, on the other hand, will welcome this book, as it highlights the biblical feast of trumpets.

I'm a pastor with limited knowledge of astronomy so I asked a friend to review the book. She has a PhD in Astronomy from MIT and is also a Christian. She said that the theories presented hear are scientifically plausible. I have a little bit of knowledge about the history of the era and find this rendering to be thorough and well-researched. Far more knowledgeable Bible scholars have vouched for Martin's Biblical exposition.

The one discomforting thing about the book will be Martin's conclusion in which he argues for far more precision than I find realistic. That said, this is a good read and an excellent book for the library of any serious Bible student.

The Star That Astonished the World
I got very fast delivery on the book. This book is a good course to explore both history and a meaning of celestial sings in the ancient world. Who wants to know more about the Star of Bethlehem this volume is the best one.

For someone who is supposed to be an expert in Biblical research is odd at best, pure fabrication at its worst - read Job 38 and see if you can read ANY influence (his word italicised) by the Pleiades on life as we know it.
Where he deals with others research around dating he is decent; but, his style is loaded with "insistence" of things that "must" be when they are not absolute and offering buy in on things that just about everybody agrees on. My college Rhet and Comp instructor would shred his logic crutches.
His date references completely shoot down his whole title - the day of birth was in the year prior to the "star that astonished the world" happening - the magi would have made their "King of king's" opinion, travelled and been back home before the title star ever shone.
Additionally he makes the classic astronomers' mistake and goes for the "astronomically neat" solution and makes no real attempt to uncover how Zorastrian priests would identify a king. An astronomical phenomenon months after the birth would not relate to his birth.
The real solution is still unknown...
and trying to validate his opinions with his sources just left me angry.

In this book, Ernest L. Martin weighs in with his solution of certain questions surrounding the birth of Jesus, such as the nature of the star mentioned by Matthew and the historicity of the census mentioned by Luke. Although Martin often refers to the "new historical information" in his book, much of this "new" information is in fact old and most of the views held by Martin have been put forward previously. In several places Martin takes others to task for being too dogmatic in their historical reconstructions, but he himself makes plenty of bold claims. Some sample statements: "The Star of Bethlehem Has Now Been Found" (a section title on p. 20); "In a word, the `census' of Quirinius associated with the nativity of Jesus has been found" (p. 199); and "In no way could Herod have died in 4 B.C." (p. 227). Martin is quite passionate about his topic, but from a practical point of view it is more than adequate to know within 5 years when Jesus was born.

Although the book is interesting, it is grounded in certain assumptions that lead to "overhistoricizing" (in the words of Raymond Brown in "Birth of the Messiah"). Despite the appearance of legend and myth in the NT infancy narratives, Martin takes every Biblical statement to be accurate history and does not even consider explanations that assume otherwise. (Brown's book is greatly superior in this regard). For example, Martin believes there really was a star of Bethlehem, although this may be a purely legendary feature modeled on the story of Balaam in the OT. He believes that Magi from the East really did bring gifts to Jesus, and is therefore driven to accept that an astrological interpretation given to the star by the Magi was in fact correct. Although he states, "The purpose of this book is not to plead for the symbolic veracity of these various celestial signs," he implicitly assumes that veracity; otherwise, he would have to hold that the connection between the birth of Jesus and the visit of the Magi was purely accidental.

In order to help build his arguments, Martin makes certain dubious statements. For example, he implies that the appearance of the sun in the constellation Virgo (the Virgin) on a certain date would have excited Messianic expectations, writing (p. 51), "Recall that the Messiah was prophesied to be born of a virgin [...]". However, as noted by J. Gresham Machen in his book "The Virgin Birth of Christ" (p. 293), "[...] whatever the true interpretation of Is. vii.14 may have been, the actual interpretation of that prophecy which was prevalent among the Jews in the first century after Christ was, unless all indications fail, as far as possible from finding in that prophecy any prediction of the virgin birth of the Messiah."

One reason I gave the book two stars instead of three is that the writing style is at best mediocre; a good editor should have been used to get the text into shape. The book abounds with awkward or garbled sentences. An example (p. 23): "In order to have an audience with Herod and for him to have members of the Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court of the Jews) to hear the interpretations of these Magi must show that they were held in high esteem by the people of Jerusalem." At one point (p. 43), Martin tells us that he is a book: "As a book of history, I am only showing what was believed in the world in the first century." Argh.