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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe