Hi All,
Thank you for your thoughtful response, and I agree with you in your affirmation that the event seen above Jerusalem and Bethlehem was a supernatural rather than an astronomical event. Stars don’t generally “stand” over houses as we read in Matthew-2 or precede Magi out of the East. However, given how widespread the astronomical and astrological reading is in the minds of even many “conservative” Biblical voices, I too before diving deeper, once held entirely to a purely natural explanation. This being said, the grounds for the miraculous here which you have articulated also makes sense of Ignatius’ claim of the star’s brilliance.
Revisiting the passage more closely, we notice some additional details which might expand our exploration of the historicity of this event. As we read,
A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens]. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.
Ignatius informs us that the star shown greatly “above” the light of the sun and moon. But he never states when this occurred or even if this was a consistent phenomenon. The passage that leads up to this description begins by informing us that “the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world.” So it is the virginity of Mary and the Incarnation which is in view in this passage. Therefore, if this context actually reflects a Marian eyewitness, is it possible that this “novelty” was not ongoing to this level of brilliance but occurred during a particular point in the star’s circuit toward Bethlehem? Perhaps the “star” shone brightly but increased in luminosity over a general geographical region, shining either at a consistent or steadily growing rate, until reaching the Manger in Bethlehem. Therefore, the extreme luminosity Ignatius describes may have been a vision only isolated to the particular evening of the nativity or over a limited period of time in which the Magi visited the lodgings of the Holy Family. This means distinguishing between the general miracle of “the star,” as recorded by Matthew, which occurred over a lengthy period of time, with the particular miracle of “the star” shining in an unusual manner on, or near, the Magi’s arrival in Bethlehem. This may have occurred in a localized manner. We see something similar to this in the events of October 13th, 1917 in Fatima. Here, the sun appeared to increase in size, dance wildly in the heavens, turn blood-red and appear to nearly collide with earth. The event was local. Some estimates place 75 thousand to 100 thousand persons at the sight of the field and it was widely reported on by spectators who were anti-Catholic, atheistic, or simply curious who arrived to examine the data for themselves. From a strictly materialistic paradigm, the miracle of the sun defied all laws of physics. Therefore, it is logical to assume a non-material cause. In the same way the “star” in Mathew-1 and Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians-19 can shine more keenly than the other luminaries, and move freely through the heavens like an ancient satellite precisely because it is a non-repeatable miraculous event. Yet as some have articulated in their generous responses, this event could only have meaning in association with the cultures who beheld its occurrence, interpreting the event of “the miracle of the star” in continuity with the milieu in which they were set. Jesus’ statement, “Before Abraham was, I am,” only possesses meaning in light of His audience understanding the divine context of the phrase “I am that I am.”
As for the lack in primary sources, this also was once something which bothered me. In fact this was one of the primary reasons why I began my own search into the “I am” statements in the fourth gospel. However, in light of Tim and Lydia’s work on undermining the argument from silence, I believe we have firm grounds for assuming that simply because documentation hasn’t survived doesn’t mean it never existed.
Ignatius’ reference strongly validates Mathew’s description of the Christmas Star. Before Ignatius’ reference in his letter to the Ephesians-19, we possessed no other allusion to the event within the apostolic era. Given Ignatius’ proximity to John, Peter, and potentially Mary herself, such an allusion is certainly encouraging and bolsters Mathew’ credibility as a historian. While it is true that an event of the “novelty” Ignatius describes well could have been recorded in other sources, the fact that they have not survived is no bar to the events’ historicity. Many of the shocking events of the birth of our Lord, such as the slaughter of the innocent, the Magi’s existence, and Herod’s knowledge of the nativity, are only contained in Mathew. Does this mean that they never happened? Certainly not. Mathew was writing presumably before 70 A.D, and I would place the writing of his gospel in the 40s during the lifetime of Mary and other friends of eyewitnesses of Jesus. It is unlikely that fabrications on a large scale could have been perpetrated. In the same way does this mean that Luke, Mark, and John never make mention of the Christmas Star or the additional miracle of some localized “chorus” of luminosity as described by Ignatius? Such an event admittedly does not appear in the canonical books attributed to them. However, do we assume that these are the only documents, sermons, or histories they ever composed? Certainly not. Regular communication had to have been made between Paul and the various churches he planted throughout Asia Minor. We know from Irenaeus that John as an older man had an active ministry in and around Ephesus stamping out heresies which sought to distort the living memory of the apostolic era with gnostic innovations. Had the Christmas Star been, at one point in its journey, as uniquely luminous as Ignatius records, John could have easily mentioned this in public discourse with any one of the seven churches he alludes to in Revelation 1 and 2, over which he held some sway from at least the 60s through the 90s. Perhaps this active ministry was prompted by the death of Peter and Paul towards the close of the 60s. Perhaps this was partly due to the reality that many other eyewitnesses were being martyred. What is clear from Irenaeus, which we presume was handed on from Polycarp, is that John may have had a massive literary output during this period in which several of these non-repeating Biblical episodes may have been discussed in greater detail. The fact that these sources don’t survive should not surprise us. Under Diocletian and perhaps as early as Nero, evidence related to the life of the Nazarene could have been willfully destroyed or hidden never to be recovered. This appears to have been the fate of the autograph of the fourth gospel though copies survive. I have pasted below quotations regarding the survival of autographs of the gospels—original hand-written manuscripts composed by the apostolic authors themselves.
Tertullian born nearly fifty years after the death of John and writing within the lifetime of Irenaeus states in no uncertain terms to his opponents,
“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).”
Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, martyred in A.D. 311, claims the autograph of the Gospel of John survived in Ephesus, the place of John’s death in A.D 96. Peter was writing nearly 200 years after John’s death and the final redaction of the gospel.
John, the divine and evangelist, teaches us in the Gospel written by him, where he thus speaks: “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.” And after a few things more. “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Tabatha. And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the third hour,” as the correct books render it, and the copy itself that was written by the hand of the evangelist, which, by the divine grace, has been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the faithful.
The fact that the autographs themselves survived for nearly 200 years when discussing the gospel of John, and for nearly 100 years in the case of Pauline writings as recorded by Tertullian, suggests that care was taken to preserve these texts and that it is likely that much more was preserved by “the thrones” of the apostles Tertullian makes mention of. This statement alone implies Apostolic Succession. If such a vast literary output existed, then mention of the event Ignatius mentions is plausible and even probable. It is a miracle, therefore, that even this much has survived from John and the other eyewitnesses of Jesus in light of not one, but at least three ruthless roman persecutions of the church before the Edict of Milan in the 4th century.
So in conclusion, I would argue that the vast numbers of people Ignatius seems to imply witnessing the Christmas Star’s unique brilliance may have indeed led to primary sources, sources which may have been preserved like the autographs of the gospels. Justen Martyr makes mention of a report Pilate sent back to Rome about the events of the crucifixion. The fact that such a document is lost does not mean it was never composed. Also—and this is potentially perilous to write in these days of skepticism—it is possible that just because such a document was lost does not mean it cannot be rediscovered or come to light. The discovery of the Qumran library in 1947 clearly demonstrates this. So I will dreamily keep digging and perhaps one day we may discover a Roman historian’s mention of the Christmas Star or realize that sources such as the spurious letter of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius are authentic. What I love about this discourse is the potentiality to broaden our horizons beyond the limiting scope of the minimalists and materialists—a beautiful quest in which I am blessed to find allies in both of you. My goal is that many other souls will benefit from such an odyssey.
God bless you all,
John