(avg. read time: 6–12 mins.)
The star of Bethlehem (Matt 2:2, 7, 9–10)
I listed this evidence as being of questionable relevance for determining the date of Jesus’s birth, but many scholars have not shared that evaluation. Instead, they have sought to identify a specific astral phenomenon as the one described in Matt 2 in order to give us a general idea of when the events took place. Scholars have proposed three basic types of phenomena as a possible explanation for the star of Bethlehem: 1) a nova; 2) a conjunction of planets; 3) a comet.1
A nova involves the appearance of what seems to be a “new” star from the perspective of the Earth. Of all the proposed phenomena, this would be the brightest and, for that reason alone, the most attention-grabbing. However, this theory has not been as popular due to how stationary such a star would appear from earth, whereas Matthew’s narration implies something more mobile. What tends to override this consideration is the fact that there was one spectacular nova in the timeframe in which scholars typically place Jesus’s birth. As Jack V. Scarola describes it,
The star of Matthew was probably a nova recorded by the Chinese as appearing in the year 5 B.C. Ancient Far East annals provide an interesting explanation for the star mentioned in the Matthean gospel (ARSB 443). An important sighting is recorded in the Astronomical Treatise of the History of the Former Han Dynasty. A bright nova suddenly appeared sometime between early March and early April of 5 B.C. This remarkable spectacle then proceeded to endure for more than seventy days (ARSB 444). In ancient Middle East astronomy, only the most spectacular events would have aroused sufficient interest to be recorded. The star of Matthew is obviously in this category.2
Such a nova would certainly be spectacular, but this theory is the weakest in terms of explanatory power and scope. We have already noted the issue of a nova’s stationary appearance from the perspective of Earth (any such star would be too far away for us to notice a change in its position relative to Earth), but another problem each of the astronomical theories needs to explain is how the star could guide the magi to a specific place. An especially bright nova with such un-pointed radiance would be the least likely phenomenon to point to a certain place.
A conjunction of planets involves two of the planets in our Solar System (without the use of a telescope, this could involve Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) appearing close together in the sky. A type of conjunction that is particularly remarkable is a triple conjunction, in which the planets conjoin three times in a short period. If they are close enough together, the two celestial bodies can give the impression of amplified reflected light, making it appear as if there is an especially bright cluster of stars in the sky. Scholars have typically identified such conjunctions—usually as triple conjunctions—as involving the planets of Mars, Jupiter, and/or Saturn, the planets of most concern to Babylonian astronomers. As Colin J. Humphreys notes,
The eighth century AD astrological world history ‘On Conjunctions, Religions and Peoples’ by Masha'allah was based on an earlier Babylonian theory that important religious and political changes are predicted by conjunctions of the planets Saturn and Jupiter. Thus Masha'allah used Iranian astronomical computations to claim that the flood, the birth of Christ and the birth of Muhammad were all predicted by conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter in the appropriate astrological circumstances.3
Ludwig Ideler calculated that there was a triple conjunction of Saturn with Jupiter in 7 BCE, and insisted that the brightness of the configuration could have appeared as a single radiant star.4 Subsequent calculations have shown that the planets would not have been close enough to create such an illusion.5 Still, others have noted that Jupiter and Saturn were conjoined for the last time that year in the constellation Pisces, and such an event would be all the more interesting to astrologers (especially if they thought there was some link between the Jews and Saturn, as Tacitus [Hist. 5.4] implies).6 While planets are much more mobile in the sky from the perspective of Earth, they are also unlikely to give anyone a sense of pointing to a specific place. Nor, at least in this case, is it likely that the magi would perceive such a conjunction as one noticeably bright object.
Johannes Kepler actually proposed a combination of 1) and 2) on the basis of an analogous event between December 1603 and October 1604. In that span, there was a triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, which was then followed by a nova that was visible for about a year. In 1614, he calculated that such a pair of events also happened in 6 BCE, wherein a triple conjunction of Saturn with both Jupiter and Mars was followed by a nova.7 Again, Kepler’s explanation might work for why the magi would be interested in certain astral phenomena, but it does not explain the Gospel narration.
The case for a comet being this star is straightforward. Comets are luminous objects that appear in the sky, they can remain in the sky for some time, and they have a tail that observers on Earth may interpret as having a point to it. Halley’s Comet appeared in 12 BCE, but naturally—except in cases like Vardaman’s—this is regarded as too early to be the star of Bethlehem. It was also a long-expected return and thus would not have led the magi to undertake a long journey to see where the comet led.8 Humphreys has argued extensively for the hypothesis that the star was a comet.9 Specifically, he argues that it was a comet that appeared in the constellation Capricornus in 5 BCE after the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BCE and the massing of three planets in 6 BCE.10 In order to explain how the star led the magi to Jerusalem and then to Bethlehem, Humphreys posits that in the time it took to travel to Jerusalem (about 1–2 months), “the comet had moved through about 90°, from the east to the south, which is consistent with the 1 or 2 degrees per day typical motion of a comet.”11 Of course, such a scenario would seem to require many days of small, incremental change, only for the magi to suddenly notice that they had to go due south on the last leg of the journey. Otherwise, he cites examples from Cassius Dio (Rom. Hist. 54.29.8) and Josephus (J.W. 6.289) of comets being described as stars “standing over” a place, but he once again has to paper over some imprecision, as Josephus’s syntax seems to indicate that the star and the comet are two different signs.12 Furthermore, he cites Origen (Cels. 1.58–60) as an early interpreter who identified the star with a comet.13 However, there are two problems with citing either Origen or Eusebius (Dem. ev. 9.1) as agreeing with a comet interpretation. First, neither interpreter simply says that it was a comet, but they present comets as analogies for what the star was, as they say the star was something like a comet. Second, as noted above, both Origen and Eusebius dated Jesus’s birth to a time that would apparently not be possible according to this theory, as no one has identified a spectacular comet (or a comet that appeared in a spectacular context) that would have been visible in the area in 3 or 2 BCE. In neither case do the authors suggest that it is a comet based on the linguistic indicators, as Humphreys and others do, so it is not as if we can say that we can accept their speculation based on language, even if they were working without knowledge of historical astral phenomena.
Overall, I think any attempt to identify a specific astral phenomenon with the star of Bethlehem is doomed from the start. First, despite the efforts of scholars to find a phenomenon that fits the descriptions provided by Matthew, inevitably some details need to be ignored or obfuscated to comport with the description of one or another of these possibilities. Matthew says that the magi observed this star in the east (2:2), which, given their journey from the east (2:1) means that they saw it while they were in the east, and perhaps that they saw it moving westward from the east. The star is an object that has appeared only recently (2:7). When the magi leave Jerusalem, where the star had led them, they discover, as if suddenly (note the use of ἰδού), that the star has gone ahead of them to the south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem (2:9). The star is then described as standing over the place where the child was (2:9). Frankly, in the words of Raymond Brown, such an event “would have constituted a celestial phenomenon unparalleled in astronomical history; yet it received no notice in the records of the times.”14 Indeed, it is unparalleled among novae, conjunctions, and comets for an object to move westward then southward. A nova is a star that seems to suddenly appear, but it would not move westward until making a hard left turn at Jerusalem, nor could it have emitted a ray of light so specific as to identify Bethlehem, much less a specific house. Planetary conjunctions do not the fit the description of star that has appeared recently, nor would they be likely to present as one remarkably bright star. And while they are “mobile” heavenly bodies (hence their name as πλανῆται/“planets” [Greek equivalent of “wanderers”]), there is no analogy for them moving in such a fashion as creating a sense of a hard left turn at Jerusalem to proceed south to Bethlehem, going before people, and then coming to “stand over” that place. A comet would make more sense as pointing to a place because of its tail, but even then, it is not so precise that it could point to a house within a town. At best, you would get what Josephus describes of his star over Jerusalem with its point facing down toward a city like Jerusalem. But the more fundamental failing of the comet reading for this star’s activity is that it cannot account for how a comet heading westward and somewhat south from the east could point to a location with its tail for travelers who are also proceeding westward from the east. From their perspective, the tail would be continuously pointing in their general direction. In order for the tail to be pointing south and for the magi to “cross” it at a point where its tail can be perceived to point to a place, it would need to be heading generally northward and eastward. Otherwise, they would have needed to overshoot where the comet was in the sky and look backwards to triangulate the position the tail was pointing. But even on the reading most generous to the comet thesis, this is not the type of activity that Matthew conveys, since the star leads them to Jerusalem from the east and only after their stop in Jerusalem does it appear to go before them southward. As such, it seems more likely that Matthew has called this object a star because it shares the basic qualities of being a luminous heavenly body, but we cannot say more beyond that.
Second, if this was simply the appearance of a luminous body in the heavens and not something identifiable as a “star” in the stricter sense required for astral phenomena involving stars, planets, or comets (all of which could be called ἀστήρ, even though more precise terminology was available), Matthew would still have narratival and theological reasons to describe it as a “star.” It was a trope of his time to link stars to the coming of rulers or to other great portents, whether for deliverance or judgment (Sib. Or. 3.334–337; 5.155–161; Josephus, J.W. 6.289, 310–315; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13; Ann. 14.22; 15.47; Virgil, Aen. 2.692–704; Cicero, Div. 2.6.16; Suetonius, Nero 36; Vesp. 23; Pliny, Nat. 2.6.28; cf. Suetonius, Aug. 94; Ovid, Metam. 15.745–870 [referencing Caesar’s comet, a sign interpreted as confirmation of his divinity]).15 The activity of angels in the birth narratives also provides another context for this star imagery in the complex associations of angels and royalty with stars in Jewish literature (Judg 5:19–20; 1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 20; Job 38:7; Isa 14:13; Wis 3:7–8; 1 En. 86:1, 3; 104:2–6; 108:11–15; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 Bar. 51:10; T.Levi 18:3–4; LAB 26:13; 1QS IV, 6–8, 1QM XVII, 6–8; cf. Rev 9:1; 12:4). It is not perfectly clear that Matthew used this star as a roundabout way of referring to an angel, although that certainly is the interpretation of the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (7) and John Chrysostom (Hom. Matt. 6.3) says much the same thing. More importantly, as was recognized early on, this imagery alludes to Balaam’s prophecy in Num 24:17 of a star coming out of Jacob and a scepter arising out of Israel, which is implied to stand for a person (Origen, Cels. 1.59; Hom. Num. 18.4; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 9.1).16
Summary
In light of these points, the attempt to assign a definite and readily comprehensible phenomenon to this star seems as misguided as attempting to determine the type of cloud that led Israel through the wilderness. The star’s activity cannot be accounted for on any particular theory, much less can its coincidence in time and (eventually) place with the birth and infancy of Jesus. Even if we posit that Matthew is being somewhat poetic in his description, focusing more on the theological force of the imagery than on the historical details, it is still probable that Matthew is aware, despite not being an astronomical expert of his day, that this is not how stars work, whatever heavenly luminous body he could describe as “stars.” We may suggest analogies, as Origen and Eusebius did, but in any case, it is likely that interpreters like John Chrysostom were right all along and this is why we should not attempt to make definite links between the star of Bethlehem and readily comprehensible (even if irregular) astral phenomena. Since the reference to the star of Bethlehem cannot be correlated with any historical astral phenomenon, it is irrelevant to determining the date of Jesus’s birth.
For a review of proposals, see Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible, rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 306–20.
Jack V. Scarola, “Chronology of the Nativity Era,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers, ed. E. Jerry Vardaman (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 75. The source cited here is, David H. Clark, John H. Parkinson, and F. Richard Stephenson, “An Astronomical Reappraisal of the Star of Bethlehem—A Nova in 5 B.C.,” JRAS 18 (1977): 443–49.
Colin J. Humphreys, “The Star of Bethlehem, a Comet in 5 B.C. and the Date of Christ’s Birth,” TynBul 43 (1992): 44.
Alden A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 323.
Scarola, “Chronology,” 75.
Konradin Ferrari-D’Occhieppo, “The Star of the Magi and Babylonian Astronomy,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ed. Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 45, 49; Scarola, “Chronology,” 74.
Mosshammer, Easter Computus, 322.
Scarola, “Chronology,” 73.
Humphreys, “Comet,” 31–56.
Ibid., 44. This collection of events also gives Humphreys an opportunity for a rather creative interpretation for the next bit of data we will examine below: “Earlier Herod had asked the Magi ‘the exact time the star had appeared’ (Mt. 2:7). It is suggested that the Magi spoke with Herod when they arrived in Jerusalem in April/June 5 BC and recounted not only the appearance of the comet about one month previously but also described the significance of the planetary massing in 6 BC and the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in May, October and December 7 BC. Herod, leaving nothing to chance, decided to kill all boys born since the first stage of the triple conjunction in May 7 BC, two years previously” (48–49).
Ibid., 36.
The “star” is followed by a main verb, then there is a καί followed by a circumstantial participle, which marks a subordinate clause, and this subordinate clause has a distinct nominative subject (κομήτης).
Ibid., 38–39.
Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, 2nd ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 188.
For other sources, see Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 233–34.
Also see Origen, Comm. Matt. frag. 27 on Matt 2:2 in GCS 41.1 (https://www.wbc.poznan.pl/dlibra/publication/128899/edition/137917/content).