Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In Matthew 2:1-12, there are mentions of the Star of Bethlehem, specifically

Matthew 2:2

and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

Matthew 2:7

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.

Also, is the subject of many Christmas carols, including We Three Kings of Orient Are.

My question is, is there evidence to suggest an astronomical origin of the Star of Bethlehem?

share|improve this question
3  
The article A Further Examination of the Gospel in the Stars touches on this as a tangential to another issue. You might find it interesting reading. –  Caleb Feb 14 at 22:31
    
Well, I've always understood that it is not a star, because this does not have that behavior. But maybe I'm wrong. –  Paul Vargas Feb 14 at 22:41
    
@PaulVargas perhaps not wrong at all, what have you understood this phenomena as being? –  user3376 Feb 14 at 22:43
2  
Worth grabbing this free ebook (requires a free registration) with two "chapters" on this question. Parpola and Allison both top scholars, albeit in different fields. My hunch is that you'd probably enjoy reading them. –  Davïd Feb 14 at 23:10
    
@Davïd-The free ebook is very interesting.Thanks. –  Bagpipes Feb 15 at 12:59

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I have been wanting to spend some proper time on this question but ... it's just too vast! Meanwhile, perhaps it's worth simply providing the set of resources I've gathered to supplement the other answers to OP's interest in scientific explanations for the "Star of Bethlehem". I'll group them into two categories, (1) those originating in "Biblical Studies"; and (2) those originating from the "Astronomy" (science) side.

(This is in addition to the things noted in the comments to OP's question, and the other answers already present.)

1. Biblical/Historical Studies resources

2. Astronomy Resources

  • Pride of place must go to the bibliography compiled by Ruth S. Freitag, The Star of Bethlehem: A List of References (Washington : Library of Congress, 1979) (note that full text options are available from that link), which "continues to be the starting point for those who are curious about the Star of Bethlehem’s existence" (according to Jennifer Harbster, "The Christmas Star" (LoC blog; December 21, 2011).

That is a bit dated now, so some newer material:

  • I. Bulmer-Thomas, "The Star of Bethlehem - A New Explanation - Stationary Point of a Planet", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 33, NO.4 (Dec 1992): 363-374.
  • Anthony F. Aveni, "The Star of Bethlehem", Archaeology Vol. 51, No. 6 (November/December 1998), pp. 34-42 [puts into context of ancient astrology and scientific developments]
  • David H. Kelley, A.F. Aveni, Eugene F. Milone (eds), Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy (2nd edition; Springer, 2011) - chapter 15, "The Descent of the Gods and the Purposes of Ancient Astronomy" devotes section 15.2.2 (pp. 482-486, dense double columns; but = 15.3.1 in the online edition) to "The Star of Bethlehem", and list the main possibilities for the phenomenon behind the gospel of Matthew's star (p. 483):
  1. none—the narrative being a literary invention for the purpose of identifying the birth of a king with heavenly signs;
  2. a comet, which could be seen prior to and following perihelion passage;
  3. a variable star, most likely one or more novae or supernovae;
  4. a planetary conjunction—either a two- or three-planet conjunction;
  5. at least for one of the events, an exploding bolide; and, finally,
  6. a unique or rare event or combination of events, which believers could well call a miracle.

N.b. I know this isn't an "answer", but I hope it's still a worthwhile contribution. Perhaps it can get filled out in time to come.

share|improve this answer
    
This is a very good answer! Particularly the list provided - much to think about, thank you for this. –  user3376 Feb 22 at 22:52

Short answer: none.


It was not a ordinary star. A ordinary star does not have the behavior that Matthew wrote. The star appeared for a time and then disappeared.

Matthew 2:2 (NASB)
"Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."

If the star had not disappeared, why ask? They were then sent to Bethlehem. The star appeared again. It was in front of them. It stood over the place where the child was.

Matthew 2:9-10 (NASB)
After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.

This star was not too high in the sky. It could to point out to the house where the child was.

It was something supernatural.

share|improve this answer
    
There are other scientific explanations possible. –  user3376 Feb 17 at 20:24

While the best way to describe the phenomenon that lead the Magi (Wise Men) to the place where the Christ Child was is to refer to it as a star, I doubt that it was a literal star that was seen.

Matthew 2:7: Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

First only the Magi saw the star if it were a literal star it would have been seen by many others and they too would have followed this star. Herod and those in his court did not see the star so he inquired of the Magi what time the star appeared.

Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

The star appears to have a mind of its own; it reappears and once again leads the Magi when they left Herod’s palace and continued their journey in search of the Child (It was obviously not visible while the Magi spoke the Herod or he would have seen it and not inquired concerning it). But the most amazing trait of this star is that it stood over where the young child was. No star has ever behaved in this manner.

So if it was not a literal star what was it?

Genesis 1:1-4 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

In the creation story we learn that light appeared on the first day of creation but this was not the sun (A star) since the sun was not created until day four of creation.

Genesis 1:14-15 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

The light that appeared on day one of creation was that Glory of the Almighty God. This is the same light that will illuminate the New Jerusalem at the end when God sets up His eternal kingdom.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

So the star that led the Magi was the same that illuminated the earth on day one of creation and the same that will illuminate the city that shall descend from heaven like a bride adorned for her husband. The star that led the wise men was the Glory of God.

share|improve this answer
    
There are other possible scientific reasons for this phenomena –  user3376 Feb 17 at 0:48
1  
This is true but my answer is not void of Biblical reference in support of my claim –  Will Sivart Feb 17 at 1:03

In a way, yes. The star appears only in Matthew's Gospel, which is now widely considered to have been written in the 80s of the first century. Many scholars say that Matthew's nativity account is not historical. or example, Ian Wilson, in Jesus: The Evidence, page 48 says,

The hard reality is that neither the Matthew nor the Luke nativity stories offers sufficient historicity (and the story of the wise men and the star appears only in Matthew) for anyone to be confident that there was a star at all.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann says in Putting Away Childish Things, page 7 that the nativity accounts are, with respect to time, place, and circumstances, a collection of legends. We can therefore look for a more recent astronomical event than the time of King Herod, almost a hundred years earlier.

There was a star that appeared in the mid-60's and caused many prophecies all around the Roman Empire. When Josephus was captured by the Romans he told the Roman general, Vespasian, that this star meant that he would become emperor of Rome; when this prophecy later came true, Josephus was granted his freedom and allowed to use the surname Flavius. In Rome it was seen as foretelling the downfall of Emperor Nero. This star appeared during the First Roman-Jewish War, and proof of its existence and its effect on all who saw it is found in Josephus’ The Wars of The Jews, VI.6.3:

Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year … This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskilful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

Among the Jews, this was a particularly powerful omen, as it was seen as representing an omen in Numbers 24:17-19. It has been suggested that the author of Matthew's Gospel was inspired by this recent and awe-inspiring astronomical event.

share|improve this answer
1  
Very interesting.Could you give a source for your study,regarding your second paragraph. –  Bagpipes Feb 15 at 12:09
4  
This doesn't show its work in several assertions, which is a requirement on this site. Don't just tell us what you know, tell us how you know it. I've added a post notice for now, but keep in mind that unsourced material may be edited or removed. Also, ideally provide the page number or a link to sources so we can verify your claims. –  maj nem ɪz dæn Feb 15 at 16:25
    
I hope I have met the essential requirement that there was such a star, that it appeared at the appropriate time and that it caused such a sensation that the author of Matthew could have been inspired by it. Of course, this is unprovable, but was suggested as a possible origin for the story of the star of Bethlehem. –  Dick Harfield Feb 17 at 0:48
    
A good edit and a compelling thought –  user3376 Feb 17 at 0:50
1  
I have added a further scholarly view that the star of Bethlehem should be viewed sceptically, and added page numbers to my references. –  Dick Harfield Feb 17 at 1:09

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.