What was the star of Bethlehem?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The star of Bethlehem, which Christian lore maintains led the wise men to the birthplace of Jesus, is one of the most enduring and well-known Christmas legends. Almost as enduring among sky-watchers is the question of whether an ordinary (that is, non-miraculous) astronomical event could have fit the biblical description of the star.

The star appears in the Book of Matthew, which chronicles its appearance as spurring the wise men to seek out King Herod in Jerusalem and then guiding them to Bethlehem. So some astronomers have taken the reign of Herod as a time parameter and scanned the ancient skies for likely candidates using software that reconstructs the locations of celestial objects thousands of years in the past or projects their locations thousands of years in the future.

One popular explanation is a conjunction of the two brightest planets, Jupiter and Venus, which appears to have occurred in June of the year 2 B.C. Those two planets, drawing close to one another, would have appeared as a single point of intense light in the night sky. But many estimates for the death of Herod peg the king as having perished by that time.

Another candidate for the legendary star is a nova, or brightly flaring star, that Chinese astronomers recorded in 5 B.C., a theory discussed in depth by Mark Kidger in his 1999 bookThe Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomer's View.

Nick Strobel, an astronomer who teaches at Bakersfield College, a community college in California, maintains an extensive Web page examining the various theories about the star of Bethlehem. Strobel acknowledges that there may be no literal, historical basis for the star's appearance as described in the Bible, but he believes that an earlier planetary conjunction, in 6 or 7 B.C., is a better fit, as is Jupiter in retrograde motion, during which it would have appeared frozen in the sky for a number of days.

Of course, any attempt to scientifically validate or invalidate pieces of scripture is sure to rankle some (read: many). And even if the star of Bethlehem really did exist, the tools of astronomy may never be sufficient to point out what it was. As Phil Plait, who writes the blog Bad Astronomy, put it, "The astronomical evidence is interesting, but interpreting it should be done with a

pillar grain of salt."

Image credit: NASA/ESA

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe