This post is a summary of the article “A Comet, Christ’s Birth, and Josephus’s Lunar Eclipse” by Charles Dike in Volume 52 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter series is available at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought/.
The Takeaway
Dike describes how, under the right circumstances, a comet recorded in 5 BC could have produced both the night without darkness and the Star of Bethlehem, allowing him to propose a detailed timeline for the events surrounding Christ’s birth.
The Summary
In this article, Charles Dike proposes that a comet observed by the Chinese in March of 5 BC corresponds to the Star of Bethlehem, and argues that its passing—in conjunction with a strong Coronal Mass Ejection (CME)–could have produced enough light to create a night without darkness in the Western hemisphere, as described in 3 Nephi 1. Drawing in part on the work of physicist Sir Colin Humphreys, Dike strongly favors a comet over other potential options, such as a nova or supernova, since a nova would have been described as a “second sun” rather than a series of
“great lights”, which Dike instead identifies with aurora. Combined with information from scripture, Dike’s proposal allows him to create a detailed timeline for the events surrounding Christ’s birth. (Note that Dike includes several helpful figures that allow us to visualize the comet and its path.)
After describing the basic characteristics of comets, Dike describes the comet as a sungrazer which passed close to the sun as a steep (4.5-degree) angle, ultimately heading toward the star Algedi. It may have had an approach that prevented it from being seen until after it orbited near the sun (similar to the Great September Comet of 1882). In terms of producing enough light to create a night without darkness (which Dike estimates as between 2,000 and 111,000 lux), Dike explores the possibilities of Zodiacal Light and Gegenschein, two phenomena involving interplanetary dust, as well as by the previously-mentioned aurora.
The latter could conceivably been produced (and reached the equatorial area of the American continent) by a large CME. Producing such light without it being noticed on other continents would’ve required the CME to interact with the tail of the comet such that it hit the Earth at a specific range of angles. Dike sees in this comet as potentially fulfilling a variety of scripture, from Samuel’s prophecy, to references to the paschal Lamb to a new star arising, in addition to the New Testament account itself.
To skilled observers with the right tools, the first appearance of this comet would’ve been a unique event, with it emerging from the sun’s corona, looking as if it had been literally born from the sun. This birth would’ve taken place just as new lambs were being set apart for Passover. Assuming that the wise men had the requisite skills, they may have seen the comet before King Herod’s astronomers, appearing first in the east (within the morning sun’s rays) and then moving westward through the sky. The comet would’ve disappeared for a time before briefly reappearing, potentially increasing in brightness up to 300 times as it aligned with its own tail—enough for the wise men to follow it southwest of Herod’s palace toward Bethlehem.
The Reflection
As someone who had always imagined a supernova when reading through 3 Nephi 1, I went into this article prepared to wield a fair bit of skepticism. But Dike’s proposal is nothing if not thorough, and he has me thoroughly intrigued at his comet’s potential. All of the obvious concerns I’d had about the idea of a comet—its ability to generate the requisite brightness and how it might have gone previously unnoticed—have had at least had tentative paths hacked through them by what he’s presented.
Dike is aware that his proposal requires a substantial amount of conjecture. For instance, he proposes that the single location of the comet recorded by the Chinese represents the last point where it was visible, rather than the first. He also makes a number of assumptions about the nature of the comet, including the specificity of the comet’s path and its appearance in conjunction with the CME. He’s in no way suggesting that this sort of event happens all the time, because of course it doesn’t. We’ve only had one recorded night without darkness, and such an unusual event could be expected to have an unusual explanation.
What I like most about Dike’s proposal, though, is how well it ties together the various elements of Christ’s birth narrative. The thought of a celestial object appearing to burst out of the sun, streaking its way across the sky, and then disappearing as it drifted gently over a house containing the young Christ child—that’s a tantalizing image, and almost an irresistible one. I probably won’t be able to imagine the Star of Bethlehem in any other way—a testament to the work that Dike, Humphreys, and others have put forward.
Interesting. I’ll bite with an amateur astronomer’s interest.
Sungrazers have highly elliptical orbits and you would never see them reconnect with their own tail. By the time they have made one orbit the comet would be way too far away from the sun to have a tail and you wouldn’t be alive enough or close enough to see a reconnection happen anyway. A comet could slowly move eastwards through a constellation and the Magi could have followed that general direction and it could even appear to stop for a short period of time, but I’m not seeing that be of much help to find one stable in one small town. So I’m more inclined to call it a supernatural event.
This has actually been my belief for a long time because it makes more sense that other astronomical phenomenon. The New Testament says that the star moved before the wise men. Nova are stationary in the sky, but comets do travel through the sky. I’ve also noticed how this fits with the prophesy in Numbers 24:17. “…here shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel…” A comet with a tail can look like a scepter.
In the Book of Mormon, it describes two phenomena: 1. the night that was as light as day and 2. the new star that appeared, but it talks about them as if they were two separate events. The new star is mentioned as if it were an afterthought. If the new star had caused the light, then the book would have said so. Instead, it implies that the there was light in the sky without the source of the light being obvious. What the Book of Mormon describes is similar to the Carrington Event of 1859, when a Coronal Mass Ejection collided with the Earth and created auroras that we’re so bright that it seemed like day even after the sun went down. If the CME were concentrated enough, it might last less than 12 hours, which explains why it was only seen on one hemisphere. But, the comet would last for weeks and would be seen on both hemispheres.