2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem 2:2 saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

As to the identity of this star:

1. Some regard the entire story as fictional.  Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted) makes no attempt to make sense of the account.  He writes:

What does it mean that there is a star guiding the wise men, that this star stops over Jerusalem, and then starts up again, leads them to Bethlehem, and stops again over the very house where Jesus was born? What kind of star would this be, exactly? A star that moves slowly enough for the wise men to follow on foot or on camel, stops, starts again, and stops again? And how exactly does a star stop over a house? I tell my students to go outside on some starry night, pick one of the brightest stars in the sky, and figure out which house on their block it is standing over. Obviously what is being narrated here is a miraculous event, but it is very hard to understand what the author actually has in mind. It doesn’t appear to be a real star, a nova, a comet, or any astronomical phenomenon ever known.

Note the self-contradiction here.  On the one hand, Ehrman recognises that ‘what is being narrated here is a miraculous event’.  But, on the other hand, ‘it doesn’t appear to be…any astronomical phenomenon ever known.’  But it wouldn’t have to be, would it, if it were purely ‘miraculous event’?

For those who regard the star as fictitious, the story is seen as a tale weaved out of various strands of Scripture from the Old Testament.  Jenkins speculates that the appearance of Halley’s comet in AD 66 may have suggested the story to the author of the First Gospel.

Dale Allison, having noted the star’s apparent moving and resting, concludes:

‘This is no ordinary star, and attempts to identify it with a planetary conjunction, comet, or supernova are futile.’  (The Oxford Bible Commentary)

But, clearly, if we can give a plausible explanation for the behaviour of the star, we raise the index of confidence in the historicity of the event.  Its appearance might then amount to a ‘miracle of timing’.

2. At the opposite end of the scale, some regard the star as a purely supernatural phenomenon.

This was the view of Calvin:

It may be inferred from the words of Matthew, that it was not a natural, but an extraordinary star. It was not agreeable to the order of nature, that it should disappear for a certain period, and afterwards should suddenly become bright; nor that it should pursue a straight course towards Bethlehem, and at length remain stationary above the house where Christ was. Not one of these things belongs to natural stars. It is more probable that it resembled a comet, and was seen, not in the heaven, but in the air. Yet there is no impropriety in Matthew, who uses popular language, calling it incorrectly a star.

France leans towards this view.

Pater (40 Questions about the Historical Jesus) agrees:

‘Most likely…the star was the glory of God or an angel; in other words, something supernatural rather merely natural.’

Culpepper:

‘no natural phenomenon can explain a star that could guide the magi to Jerusalem, then to Bethlehem.’

Jason Engwer suggests a number of reasons for considering the star to be a non-astronomical phenomenon:

*The fact that only one group of magi is reported to have followed the star makes more sense if the star was a non-astronomical entity.

*The star’s movements make more sense under a non-astronomical interpretation.

*The fact that Herod was dependent on the magi for information about the star, even after he concluded that they’d betrayed him (Matthew 2:16), suggests that the star wasn’t an astronomical object that he could get information about from other sources.

*The comments of the earliest patristic sources who discuss the star (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Protevangelium Of James, etc.) are better explained by a non-astronomical object.

It has been suggested that the ‘star’ was actually an angel – a description by no means unknown in the Bible (Job 38:7; Dan 8:10; Rev 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1).  Wilkins (NIVAC) suggests that this is

consistent with the prominent place of the angel of the Lord in the overall infancy narrative: announcing to Joseph the virginal conception of Jesus (Mt 1:20), warning the Magi not to return to Herod (Mt 2:12), warning Joseph to flee with the family to Egypt (Mt 2:13), telling them to go back to Israel (Mt 2:19), and guiding them in a dream to Nazareth (Mt 2:22).

Some appeal, in support of this interpretation, to Matthew’s description of the star as ‘going before’ the magi and ‘standing over’ the place where Jesus was born.  This objection is raised by Pate (40 Questions about the Historical Jesus).  But Matthew himself does not mention any angel or angels in connection with the star itself.  And the magi appear to rely on their own astrological calculations in determining the meaning of the star.

Ramm (The Christian View of Science and Scripture), Gleason Archer, Carson, France, Blomberg, Osborne, and Culpepper all incline to the view that the ‘star’ was purely supernatural phenomenon.

3. Others, seeking an explanation where the miracle is in the timing of the phenomenon, rather than in the event itself, suggest that the ‘star’ was a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC.  This explanation was proposed by Kepler, who observed such a triple conjunction in 1604 (which was followed by a supernova).

Mounce, following Stauffer, suggests that this was unusual in that it took place in the constellation of Pisces (an event that occurred only once in 794 years).  Mounce quotes Stauffer as maintaining that

‘since Jupiter was regarded as the star of the universe, Saturn the planet of Palestine, and the constellation of the Fishes the sign of the last days, this rare conjunction “could only mean that the ruler of the last days would appear in Palestine”.’

A variant interpretation would see Jupiter (representing the new king) overtaking Saturn (the old king) in the sky.

Kerry Magruder (Dictionary of Christianity and Science, art. ‘Star of Bethlehem’) discusses two episodes of Jupiter’s heliacal rising and retrograde motion that took place around the time of Jesus’ birth.  The first, occuring in 7 BC, involved a triple conjunction with Saturn (after which the two planets were joined by Mars).  The second, occuring in 6 BC, also involved the heliacal rising and retrograde motion of Jupiter in Aries, with an astrologically significant configuration of Mercury, Venus, Mars and Saturn.

Magruder, while obviously giving some weight to the above interpretations, notes that the identity of the star must remain uncertain until we gain a better understanding of the magi and their methods of astrological calculation.

Writing in New Scientist, David Hughes says that following his own investigation:

‘I plumped for the planetary conjunction, mainly because in Jewish astrology it suggested the overtaking of the old king (Saturn) by the new (Jupiter)-in Pisces, associated with Israel. It was also sufficiently insignificant to the non-stargazer to explain why Herod was surprised when the Magi turned up on his doorstep. This conjunction indicated that Christ was born near Tuesday 15 September, 7 BC.’

Mark Edward finds the proposal of a Jupiter/Saturn conjunction plausible, but is then faced with the claim that the star ‘moved’.  He concludes that such a conjunction may form the background to Matthew’s account, but the account can scarcely be regarded as sober history.  Edward dismisses the comet theory (on which see below) simply because it is not attested elsewhere.

Robert Clifton Robinson, following broadly the theories of Ernest L. Martin and Frederick A. Larson, proposes the following:

‘Between September of 3 B.C. and June of 2 B.C., Jupiter passed by the star Regulus in the constellation Leo. Jupiter reversed itself and then passed Regulus again, turning back to pass the star a third time. This was a remarkable event since astrologers considered Jupiter the “Kingly Planet” and regard Regulus as the “Kings Star.”

‘The crowning touch came on June 17, when Jupiter seemed to approach so close to Venus, that even without magnification, the two looked like a single star with greatly increased brilliance. This whole sequence of events could have been “signs” enough for at least three astrologers to go to Jerusalem and ask Herod: “Where is He that is born King of the Jews, for we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him.”’

This approach (as propounded by Martin and Larson) is discussed by Nicholl (pp82-84) who finds a number of problems with it.  Perhaps the most obvious difficulty is that it requires a date for Christ’s birth which is almost certainly incorrect (there is good evidence for saying that Herod had died in 4 BC, and so Jesus must have been born prior to that date.

4. Still others have made a case for a nova or supernova.  France says that

‘Chinese astronomers recorded a nova which was visible for 70 days in 5/4 B.C., which would fit a date shortly before the death of Herod.’

This theory is discussed by Mark Kidger in his 1999 book The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomer’s View.  Kidger suggests that the appearance of the nova was the culmination of a number of celestial portents.  Nicholl detects a number of flaws in Kidger’s argument, as does Pettem.  Among these is the challenge of reconciling this (and the preceding) theory with the movements of the star as described in Matthew 2.

It is not surprising, then, that a number of distinguished commentators, including Morris and France, express agnosticism on the matter.

5. For myself, I have long suspected that the ‘star of Bethlehem’ was, in fact, a comet.  A good case for this had been made by Sir Colin Humphreys in this article.

Humphreys suggests that:

‘Three unusual astronomical events were involved in the interpretation of the Magi.

First, the triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces in 7 BC, the interpretation being that a king of the Jews would be born;

Second, the massing of 3 planets in 6 BC, the interpretation being that this would be a mighty king;

Third, the comet in the east, signifying that the birth of the king was imminent, and spurring the Magi to make their journey to Jerusalem.

A particularly significant point is that 2 years elapsed between the 7 BC planetary conjunction and the 5 BC comet, which explains Herod killing all children in Bethlehem aged 2 years and under. This “2 years” is otherwise difficult to explain. Herod and his agents would not ‘easily find out for themselves’ the assumed significance of these astronomical events…since the Babylonian-trained Magi were the source of astronomical knowledge and “interpretation” in those times.’

(Paragraphing added)

The comet proposal goes back at least as far as Origen, and is famously depicted by Giotto in his painting The Adoration of the Magi (fourteenth century).

Instone-Brewer (Science & The Bible) follows Humphreys in suggesting that the phenomenon was a combination of a comet and a planetary conjunction:

‘The planets Jupiter and Saturn were conjoined (that is, they were very close to each other) in the constellation of Pisces three times in 7 BC, and then again in 6 BC along with Mars. These were followed by a comet that was visible for seventy days in 5 BC according to ancient Chinese records. These events would be very significant for the magi, who believed conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter portended important events, and associated Pisces particularly with the country of Israel.’

Biblical scholar Colin Nicholl has developed a yet more detailed and nuanced case in his 2015 book The Great Christ Comet: Revealing The True Star of Bethlehem (Crossway).

Murray Harris (Navigating Touch Texts, Vol II, 2024) clearly leans towards this theory, showing awareness of Humphreys’ work, but not Nichol’s.

The BBC’s ‘The Sky At Night’, in its ‘Christmas special’ broadcast on 30th December 2015 also plumped for the comet theory, but with no reference to Nicholl’s work, or indeed to Humphreys’.

Nicholl argues that

1. the magi were Babylonian scholars, skilled in astronomy and astrology, and used to making astronomical observation;
2. there was a considerable Jewish population in Babylon, who would have been able to point the magi to Old Testament scriptures such as Numbers 24:17 (which may well refer specifically to a comet) and Isaiah 7:14 (the famous passage about the ‘virgin’ conceiving) that would have helped them to discern its meaning and significance;
3. the appearance and of movement of the ‘star’ in the sky was so remarkable that it convinced the magi that a royal birth had taken place in Judea and led them to make the 550-mile journey;
4. the word translated ‘star’ was used in ancient times for a variety of celestial phenomena, including comets;
5. the sudden appearance of this object, and its visibility for over a year, makes sense only if it was a supernova or a comet;
6. its ‘rising’ (first appearance in the evening or dawn twilight), which so impressed the Magi, points strongly to it being a comet;
7. the movement of the object, over a couple of months, from the eastern morning sky (as seen originally from Babylon) to the southern evening sky (as seen when journeying from Jerusalem to Bethlehem), is possible only for an object in the inner solar system, again pointing strongly to its identity as a comet;
8. the description of the object ‘standing over’ the place of Jesus’ birth, and pinpointing its location, again fits its identity as a comet, with a long and prominent tail;
9. Revelation 12:1-5 appears to be a vivid account of the comet’s appearance and progress.  It is ‘born’ in the constellation of Virgo.  Soon afterwards, a great meteor storm occurs in the neighbouring constellation of Hydra.  This account is consistent with that found in Matthew 2, and they are explicable in astronomical terms;

According to Pettem, the strongest arguments against the comet identification are

(a) that there are no extant Chinese records that would support this within the correct time frame, and

(b) that a comet would normally be considered a bad omen, and not a good omen.  But the first of these objections wrongly assumes that the ancient records are complete, and the second is, at best, an over-simplification (the Star of Bethlehem was certainly a bad omen for King Herod!).

Brown (The Birth of the Messiah) adds the difficulty that if the ‘star’ is to be identified with an appearance of Halley’s Comet, then this took place in 12 BC – a long time before the usually-accepted date of Jesus’ birth.  (This may be circumvented, according to Brown, by hypothesising that Matthew’s account is not historical, but was suggested to his imagination by that appearance of Halley’s Comet and by ‘the coming of foreign ambassadors two years later to hail King Herod on the occasion of the completion of Caesarea Maritima’.  But this objection relies on the assumption that the comet in question was Halley’s; and we know that it is perfectly possible for comets with very long orbits (and therefore unknown orbital periods) to appear in the sky from time to time.

Robert Clifton Robinson dismisses the comet theory out of hand:

‘The sign that the Magi saw in the heavens was certainly not a Comet, as these types of formations were thought to be evil.’

Regarding this oft-repeated objection that comets were generally considered to be bad omens in the ancient world, Nicholl replies:

• What some consider to be a bad omen (e.g., the death of a ruler), others might well consider to be a good omen (the end of a tyrannical reign and the welcoming in of a new order.  [As noted previously, the comet was certainly bad news for Herod!]
• Examples can be cited of comets that were regarded as good omens.
• The Hebrew Scriptures (especially Num 24:17) would have led the Jews, and those acquainted with the scriptures, to regard comets positively.

Nicholl suggests that Old Testament passages such as Numbers 24:17 and Isaiah 9:2 refer to comets, and may well have formed the basis of the belief of the Magi that their comet heralded the birth of a great king.  Nichols also links the comet to Revelation 12:1-5, suggesting that this passage paints a picture of what the Magi witnessed.

Incidentally, Eusebius (roughly AD 260-340) connected the Star of Bethlehem with Numbers 24:17.  Although he did not understand that verse to be referring specifically to a comet, he did emphasise that, for him, the Bethlehem Star was a ‘strange’ star, such as a comet, and, must have been unusual, and regards the appearance of at least some comets as good omens:

‘In the case of other remarkable and famous men we know that strange stars have appeared, what some call comets, or meteors, or tails of fire, or similar phenomena that are seen in connection with great unusual events. But what event could be greater or more important for the whole Universe than the spiritual light coming to all men through the Saviour’s Advent, bringing to human souls the gift of holiness and true knowledge of God? Wherefore the herald star gave the great sign, telling in symbol that the Christ of God would shine as a great new light on all the world. (Source)’

A strength of Nicholl’s work is that he has done a great deal of astronomical homework.  Although I have an amateur interest astronomy, I have not been able to follow the details of his discussion about the movements of the comet.  For most of us, it will be sufficient to know that this work has been done, and that professional astronomers have both assisted with this work and have reviewed it favourably from that point of view.

I thought that Nicholl was sometimes a little too confident in some of his conclusions (‘possibly’ tends to morph into ‘probably’).  Also, I found some details of the argument rather speculative (for example, he did not convince me that the references to ‘light’ in John’s Gospel convey a memory of the natal ‘star’).  Nevertheless, his case as a whole is very solid.

I occurred to me as I read the book (as it will occur to many other readers) that if the comet put on such as spectacular display as Nicholl suggests, then why is there no record of it in, say, the Chinese records of the day?  Nicholl explains that this is not so surprising as at first seems, because the Chinese records were, in fact, very incomplete (he includes a substantial appendix documenting this).

Obviously, all future discussions of the magi and their ‘star’ will need to take Nicholl’s work into account.  (How unfortunate, then, that Michael Pettem’s The Star of Bethlehem: Science, History and Meaning, does not mention Nicholl at all.  Given the relevance of Rev 12 for Nicholl’s case, tt is also unfortunate that Ian Paul, in his commentary on Revelation, does not reference Nicholl’s work)  But his theory, if correct, sheds light (if you will pardon the expression) on much more besides.  It demonstrates the historicity of the biblical account at a point where it might have been thought most vulnerable, and it provides a vivid example of a particular kind of phenomenon: where the marvel is not so much in what happened, but in the timing of what happened.  It thus challenges those of a sceptical frame of mind to confront the possibility that the God of heaven and earth has intervened in this world, and not left himself without a witness to that fact.

With this last thought in mind, I have turned to one review in particular of Nicholl’s book.  Writing in the Spectator, astronomer Marek Kakula concedes that ‘since he is a Biblical scholar by training, Nicholl’s grasp of the essential astronomy and astrophysics is all the more impressive.’  Then, surprisingly, Kakula suggests that all of this careful and even-handed treatment of the astronomy ‘sits somewhat uneasily’ with the book’s assumption about the historicity of biblical account of the event itself.  But surely that is part of the point: it would have been near-impossible to fabricate a myth about a ‘star’ that behaved as the ‘star of Bethlehem’ did.  As Kakula himself acknowledges, it takes 21st-century knowledge and 21st-century technology to make astronomical sense of the record.  Far more rational, then, to assume that it actually happened and that we are now in a better position to understand more precisely what happened, and (in scientific terms) how.

Kakula continues in this rather irrational vein when he asks: ‘Does it really matter whether the Star of Bethlehem was a real astronomical object or not?’  He answers his own question by preaching a little sermon:

‘Read as a parable of hope and salvation, the Biblical account of the Nativity is a universal story: peace on earth and goodwill to all men is a message that even the most hardline atheist can get behind.’

But just as you cannot make words mean anything you like (despite the protestations of Humpty Dumpty), so you cannot make stories mean whatever you want them to mean.  The question we should be asking of the story of the magi and their ‘star’ is: Did it really happen that way?  And if it did, it does not bear the kindly but vague meaning that Kakula would like it it have: it means, rather, that our planet may have been visited in a remarkable and very specific way.

But, then again, some people may refuse to be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

Conclusion

It will be apparent from the above discussion that I think that what the magi saw was either a purely supernatural phenomenon, or that it was a comet (possibly accompanied by other significant celestial events, such as plantary conjunctions).  In the latter case, the ‘miracle’ is one of timing.