In the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, there is a very brief description of a phenomenon in the sky: "...and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was" (Mt 2:9). This terse description has proven to be extremely tantalizing to both biblical scholars as well as astronomers, prompting many to propose explanations of what this star was. Rather than adjudicating between these explanations of the Star of Bethlehem, I propose to examine the various explanations that have been offered in order to see what are the presuppositions of the various inquirers. ¹ The explanation of the Star of Bethlehem that one gives can show us more about the one making the inquiry than about what was or was not seen in the night sky of Palestine two thousand years ago. The explanation given can show us what the interpreter views as an acceptable explanation of scripture, or as an acceptable explanation of nature and God's relation to it, as well as what he or she thinks is the relationship between fact and meaning.

One possible explanation of the Star of Bethlehem is to say that it was simply a fiction invented by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, or the tradition which he took over. Such an explanation has been opted for by many, especially many of those engaged in the so-called Quest of the Historical Jesus undertaken by nineteenth-century biblical scholars. ² This explanation can be endorsed by either not mentioning the Star in a harmonization of the Gospels, or by stating explicitly that it is a pious fiction. This explanation can be stated with some satisfaction by those who seek to strip the Bible of significance, ³ or with a note of apology by those who believe in the authority of the Bible, saying that it is one of the few non-factual parts of the Bible. ⁴ But whatever their attitude towards the Bible, all who label the Star as fiction share a common presupposition about what constitutes a meaningful or significant text: a text is only worthy of analysis or consideration if it contains historical or scientific facts. All of these critics have thereby set up a strict dichotomy between history, fact, and truth, on the one hand, and myth, story, and falsehood, on the other. (That I find such a dichotomy unnecessary and unhelpful in the case of the Gospels should become clear, but it seems an accurate label of what these critics are doing.) If details of the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew are not scientific or historical, then they can be ignored and perhaps even discarded from the tradition.

Sharing these interpreters' opinion that no scientific explanation can be found for the Star of Bethlehem are those who come to a very different conclusion, namely that the Star was a miracle. ⁵ For those who discount the Star as fiction, a scientific explanation would have rendered it truthful to them, making it worthy of analysis and transmission. But for these interpreters, the opposite is true: a scientific or natural explanation of the Star would rob it of all meaning. If the Star was merely a conjunction or comet, then the miraculous birth of Christ did not receive appropriately miraculous signs and celebrants, but only some astronomical coincidences. Such an explanation would thereby demean the glory and uniqueness of Christ for these interpreters. They believe the birth of Christ deserved, indeed necessitated, that a miracle occur in the heavens.

There are many who have found various scientific explanations for the Star of Bethlehem. The most widely endorsed is the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7-6 B.C. ⁶ Other conjunctions have also been suggested, as have comets, novae, and even ball lightning. ⁷ (The nova explanation is interesting in that it can partake of both the scientific and the miraculous: it is a "real" astronomical phenomenon, but it is unique, unrepeating, and unverifiable. It seems to have been endorsed by some because of this dual nature: it is natural enough to be believable, but extraordinary enough to be a grand and impressive herald of Christ's birth.)⁸ All of these various interpreters share the same presupposition with those who discount the Star as a fable: if a scientific explanation cannot be found, the Star, and perhaps much of the rest of the Gospel, will be rendered meaningless. They disagree with the other group only as to whether such an explanation can be found, and they disagree with one another only as to what is that explanation.

Finally, there is the explanation of the Star of Bethlehem endorsed by the present author and other much more important biblical scholars. ⁹ The description of the Star that we now possess in the Gospel of Matthew is a story: it is not historical fact, nor scientific data, but neither is it therefore merely a pious fiction. Rather, I think that by calling it a story I am describing it in a way that is neither pejorative nor anachronistic. A story may or may not contain historical facts, but whether it does or not is irrelevant to its meaning. Stated boldly, a story can be true, regardless of whether or not it is factual. Matthew and the other great storytellers are more concerned with showing their audiences the significance or meaning of the events narrated than they are with conveying data. Therefore, the most appropriate question to ask of the text is not, (as it might be if one were reading a history,) "What really happened?" Such a question only deflects attention from what is really important in the story. Rather, (as is appropriate when reading either a story or a history,) the most important question is, "What do the recorded events mean?" The question Matthew seeks to answer with his story of the Star of Bethlehem is, "What does it mean for Jesus to be the Christ?" For Matthew, unlike his predecessor Mark, it means that Jesus be born in a very unusual way, a way which can, (though only through the eyes of faith,) point to his status and mission. In his infancy narrative, Matthew is contrasting the naive belief of the pagan Magi with the murderous deceit of Herod, as well as contrasting the usurper Herod with Jesus, the real King of the Jews. ¹⁰ With his story of the Star, Matthew is exhorting his audience to be as receptive to Jesus as the Magi are. Led by the imperfect guide of astrology, they are nevertheless the first Gentile converts of the Gospel, a conversion echoed and extended at the end of the Gospel, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Mt 28:19). Only when we ask what Matthew intended by his story of the Star of Bethlehem can we get an answer that is true to Matthew's purpose and renders the text meaningful.

¹ For a much fuller treatment, see my "The Star of Bethlehem Casts Light on Its Modern Interpreters" The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 34 (December 1993). In the notes here I only include a representative sampling of the relevant literature.

² Two of the most important nineteenth-century lives ignore the Star without comment: Ernest Renan, La Vie de Jesus (Berlin: Jul. Springer, 1863); D. F. Strauss, A New Life of Jesus (authorized translation, 2 vols., London: Williams and Norgate, 1865).

³ E.g., T. W. Doane, Bible Myths (New York: Charles P. Somerby, 1882) 140.

⁴ E.g., C. Cullen, "Can We Find the Star of Bethlehem in Far Eastern Records?" Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 20 (1979) 153 - 159.

⁵ Somewhat surprisingly, many of these are quite recent: K. R. Hughes, "The Magi's Worship," Christianity Today 29 (December 1985) 26-28; D. B. DeYoung, Questions and Answers on Astronomy and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989) 66.

⁶ The most important treatment is D. W. Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem. An Astronomer's Confirmation (New York: Walker and Company, 1979). Also see the Adler Planetarium's pamphlet, "What Was the Star of Bethlehem?" reprinted in Christianity Today 9 (December 1964) 5-8; and K. Ferrari-D'Ochieppo, "The Star of the Magi and Babylonian Astronomy," in Chronos, Kairos, Christos. Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989) 41-53.

⁷ These suggestions are treated very thoroughly, with arguments both pro and con presented, in Hughes', The Star of Bethlehem.

⁸ See E. W. Maunder, The Astronomy of the Bible (London: T. Sealey Clark & Co., 1908) 393-400; also B. Weiss, The Life of Christ (trans. by J. W. Hope, 3 vols., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909) 264.

⁹ The most important is R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 25-41. See also his shorter treatment, "The Meaning of the Magi; The Significance of the Star," Worship 49 (1975) 574-582. On Matthew's use of story and the historicity of such material, see H. Hendrickx, The Infancy Narratives (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984) esp. 4-7, 20-21, and 37-46; and W. E. Phipps, "The Magi and Halley's Comet," Theology Today 43 (1986) 88-92.

¹⁰ Cf. Phipps, "The Magi and Halley's Comet."