Signs in the Heavens
Slide show is resizable – use toolbar at top of viewer. Be patient! It takes a moment for the slides to load.
This is a presentation that is based partially on a DVD Documentary called “The Star of Bethlehem”. It is a good documentary, and can be found at Greg Larson’s website.
The following is a post to the RTB listserve addressing some differences in opinion with respect to Greg Larson’s work. I think one of the hallmarks of a good organization is in depth scholarly work, but understanding that not everyone is going to agree about everything, every time. More important than the minor disagreements about details herein is treating others with dignity and respect (which we all do!), and recognizing that historical models are notoriously difficult as the datasets are quite incomplete.
=======
All,
The Shreveport, LA Chapter of RTB has been watching and showing Larson’s “The Star of Bethlehem” for the past three years, I am using it in Sunday School at my church, and have taught with this DVD at another local church.
Not only that, but I was very intrigued by the DVD, purchased the software, and expanded upon Larson’s work.
And so it was with great interest that I read RTB’s official review of Larson’s work, and read their previous (but recently updated) articles on this topic, highly pertinent at this time of year, when we celebrate the birth of Christ.
The articles in question are here:
original article by Dr. Ross:
http://www.reasons.org/christmas-star
new article by Dr. Zweerink:
http://www.reasons.org/controversial-topics/bible-difficulties/review-the-star-bethlehem
The Take Two Blog:
In both articles, Drs. Ross and Zweerink provide a conservative view of the data presented by Rick Larson, a solid critique of Larson’s work, and provide alternative views of what might have happened. One of the most important things that they bring to light for me is perhaps not intentional: it is obvious that Mr. Larson is not a scientist, nor an apologist. And this is of course true: he is an intelligent Christian who made a very attractive DVD (and which I like), but it’s not done “to specs” -shall we say – for an apologist.
Jeff’s article lists some “Areas of Concern” that are most interesting – I think some of which are addressed by the Update which references Rick’s website: www.bethlehemstar.net. However, as I have both watched the DVD several times and read his website fairly thoroughly, I thought some of these deserved further comment. I am going to take them from the bottom and go up.
4. Jeff’s article cites Larson’s DVD for lack of citation. I agree, but the website provides much more data, and Larson states twice (I think) in the DVD to please visit his website for much more information. There are, however, still only a few references – much less that something written by an RTB scholar.
Larson does admit during the DVD that his interest in this topic began with a (unnamed) “PhD astronomer” who did most of the work – after all, Larson is an attorney. Thus, he “borrowed” heavily from other scholars – but does mention this in his DVD. I think (maybe) that scholar is listed on his “Contacts and Credits” page. While I agree that Larson could have given the original author more credit, the original author’s work (this is hearsay) was rather difficult to interpret.
3. A poem has several verses – a verse can be changed, and it’s still a poem. While Larson’s video is quite well produced, and merges scientific data with a melodramatic and at times humorous presentation and a good musical score, it is not (as I’ve pointed out already) an apologetic work. He naturally (and unapologetically, pun intended lol) presents it as his model – and his IS the only model that fits HIS nine points. 
I do, however, see the potential for the additional criteria suggested in the blog article, and agree that (once again) Larson’s view is less than conservative.
2. With respect to Jeff’s comment that “Some [astronomical evidences] have little relevance to historical events described in the Scriptures (such as the fact that the Sun was in the constellation Virgo, with the Moon at Virgo’s feet).” The Virgo constellation is generally perceived as a mother and a virgin. The reference to Revelations is both clear, and can actually be extended. I would argue that, while Revelations is both prophetic and apocalyptic, it does refer to an historical event: the birth of Christ. The fact that John provides a reference for the signs in the heavens (Virgo being clothed in the sun, with the moon at her feet) at the birth of Christ seem to me to be stronger arguments for 9/11/3 BC than whether or not Herod may (or may not) have died sometime near, especially when taken in conjunction with the three king signs. But I digress – I think these point directly to Virgo, as they make perfect sense for that date. In addition, the verse (Rev 12:1) also states that the woman has a crown of 12 stars on her head. This intrigued me enough to look…if I squint and use my imagination I can make out a crown of 12 stars.
In the DVD, Larson states to contact him if anyone understands verse Rev 12:3…but right next to Virgo in the sky is Hydra – a dragon/snake with numerous (seven to nine) heads. Hmm. All of this seems to still point to Virgo being the reference, and Virgo does follow Leo, and Leo is where the three king signs were. And while we are here, I think the presence of three king signs provides as much foundation for the belief in three kings as does the presence of three presents. But that’s pure speculation, really.
Larson spends a great deal of time and effort demonstrating that his work is not astrology, and clearly and consistently delineates what it is and what it isn’t. I disagree with the resemblance to astrology. As to whether it’s written in the stars – I certainly think there are signs in the heavens, and that there will be more. Much like the anthropic principle, they are there for those who wish to see.
1. This is by far the most interesting debate: when did Herod die. I must admit that Larson’s arguments here are weak, and based upon the work of someone whom he briefly references in the DVD, but whom I have found scant support of in terms of historiography. Ironically the most information I found on this topic was from the discussion page of Richard Carrier’s wiki:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Legends
Even more ironic is that Carrier and company agree with RTB in that there is scant evidence for Earnest Martin or David Beyer’s (the latter being whom I believe is the one Larson references in his video) dating of Herod’s death via examining the earliest manuscripts. Nevertheless, far be it from me to agree with the first (atheist no less) website I run across – there is, and has been for some time, considerable debate about the date of Herod’s death. Martin’s work accessible here online:
This work seems to provide more of a very thorough review of the relevant data, and argues for the later (1 BC) date based on what seems to be an exhaustive examination. Nonetheless, I agree that 4 BC is the more generally accepted date – and agree also that Larson’s work is dependent upon the date of 1 BC – at least – the first verse of the poem.
I certainly shall mention the reservations that the apologists of RTB have with Larson’s work in my own presentations of his DVD. But I felt the above points needed mentioning. Further, I think the work that I’ve done on the last verse in that poem (see the slide show above) is really quite interesting.
JP
Merry Christmas,
James Patterson,
RTB – Shreveport
(reprinted with minor edits from RTB listserve post)