The Christmas Star – Fact or Fiction?

by Tammy Plotner on December 12, 2008

‘Tis the season… And every year around this time people notice the brilliant ‘star’ to the west just after sunset. For astronomers, we know it’s the appearance of the planet Venus, but noticing it for the average person brings on questions about the holidays. Was the Christmas Star real?

Regardless of your faith, the story of the ‘Star of Bethlehem’ is one of the most powerful and enigmatic symbols of Christianity. For centuries, scientists, scholars and historians have debated about the nature of this biblical light that heralded an event. Was it purely a divine sign, created miraculously to mark a special birth? Or was it an astronomical event in its own right?

David Reneke, news editor of Australia’s Sky and Space Magazine, believes astronomers may have found the answer – or at least something that fits all the known facts – basing his research on the highly esteemed gospel according to Matthew, the first of the four gospels in the New Testament. It would appear to be the first written and this version places key players together in the same time period. “It’s generally accepted by most researchers that Christ was born between 3 BC and 1 AD.” says Dave. With the aid of modern astronomy software programs astronomers can reproduce the night sky exactly as it was, thousands of years ago. Humans are curious and so was Dave, so he turned back the hands of time and the stars to the time of that long ago Christmas…

“We found out something startling.” said Reneke, “It looks like the ‘Christmas star’ really did exist,”

Two thousand years ago, astronomy and astrology were considered one and the same. The motions of the heavenly bodies were used to determine the events of history, and the fate of people’s lives. Of the various groups of priests and prophets of this period, those which commanded the most respect were the Magi – whose origins are not entirely clear. Known as ‘wise men’ , we can only assume they were actually priests who relied on their knowledge of astronomy/astrology.

Armed with an approximate date, Dave assumed the ‘Star of Bethlehem’ was not just a localized event and could be observed by sky-watchers elsewhere in the world, not just by the Magi. Historical records and modern-day computer simulations indicate a rare series of planetary groupings, also known as conjunctions, during the years 3 BC and 2 BC In fact, this was one of the most remarkable periods in terms of celestial events in the last 3,000 years!

“Like the final pieces of a difficult jig-saw puzzle, our fabled biblical beacon is starting to reveal itself,” David said. “On 12 August, 3 BC, Jupiter and Venus appeared very close together just before sunrise, appearing as bright morning ‘stars.’ It would have been visible in the eastern dawn sky of the Middle East from about 3:45 to 5:20 a.m.”

But it didn’t stop there. The crowning touch came ten months later, on 17 June 2 BC, as Venus and Jupiter joined up again in the constellation Leo. This time the two planets were so close that, without the use of our modern optical aids, they would have looked like one single, brilliant star. According to Dave’s research, Jupiter was known as the “planet of Kings” and Saturn as the “Protector of the Jews”. This could easily have been interpreted as a sign that the Jewish Messiah had been, or was about to be, born. Also, Leo was thought to denote royalty and power. An interpretation? Perhaps. But, do not forget the times in which this occurred. Astronomy and astrology intermingled. This whole sequence of events could have been enough for at least three astrologers to see this as sign in the heavens and make their way Jerusalem.

“Now, this doesn’t mean that astrology works,” Reneke said. “We haven’t ruled out other possibilities for the Star of Bethlehem but it does make our search more rewarding to find a truly interesting astronomical event that happened during the most likely time for the Nativity.”

Whatever the Star of Bethlehem was, it has had more impact on humankind than any star before or since. It is also possible that the mystery of the Star will never be completely solved. For many of us though, it is the mystery itself that drives us to find the solution.

David Reneke, one of Australia’s most well known and respected amateur astronomers and lecturers, has over 40 years experience in astronomy with links to some of the world’s leading astronomical institutions. David is also the News Editor for Australia’s Sky and Space Magazine, he teaches astronomy at college level, is an invited speaker at astronomy conventions throughout Australia, a feature writer for major Australian newspapers, and is a science correspondent for ABC and commercial radio stations. In these weekly radio interviews David regularly appears on about 60 networked stations around the nation with all the latest news and on general astronomy and space discovery issues. Look for his story about the “Christmas Star” to air locally on Good Morning, America. Our thanks to Dave for sharing with us!

  • http://witnessnbr1.blogspot.com Michael

    First of all, I commend David for taking time to seek the truth. I wish him well.
    Secondly, my independent research of the matter(meaning not searching for other ‘opinions’ then forming my own)has shown me the ‘star’ would have been Aldeberan. I know this for a couple of reasons: 1)There was a sign in 2002 involving Aldeberan with Mars, Saturn, Venus and Mercury. 2)Using Starry Night, I also found a similar sign Mar. 19th, 5 BC involving the same star
    In order to gain meaning to the sign to begin with, you must know the Bible pretty well. Once you understand God’s timing of events, you can then start putting the pieces together.
    The 5 bc sign fell during pesach(passover), and marked the birth of John the Baptist, who was born 6 months before Messiah. This then gave the ‘Magi’ time to travel most likely from Babylon to Jerusalem. This also fits well with someone here that commented that Herod died in 4 BC. This occurred during his reign, and might also fit in with the order that children 2 and younger be killed.
    This, of course, is a ‘reader’s digest’ version of the study I’ve done. But there is another reason why it is ‘unclear’ to his day of birth…
    Solomon wrote ‘…the day of death(is better)than the day of birth’(Eccl. 7:1) Messiah’s death, on the day of passover, is held greater in observance than the day of His birth, fulfilling that part of scripture.

  • Chet Twarog

    It is a complete FICTION! There was no such event as the “Star of Bethlehem”.
    “Matthew”made it up–AND THE ONLY GOSPEL MENTION. Why weren’t there mentions in every gospel? Like the first NT “Gosepl of Mark”?

  • Helio George

    Things to consider…

    1) Whatever was seen by the “wise men”, possibly three of them (as there were three gifts presented), had to be seen before Herod’s death, which came in 4 BC.

    2) No bright astronomical object will shine upon any given town, assuming no Divine intervention. However, astronomers/astrologers could assume Israel would be the place to look if the “star” were in a constellation associated with Israel: Aries is one of them.

    This would explain two things:
    a) Why they had to stop in Jersualem and get directions.
    b) Why they were called “wise men”, and probably by women. :)

  • Andrew Walsh

    Stellarium doesn’t seem to backup these conjunctions.

  • http://www.r1313.info Ralph Rewes

    What a waste of time and minds.

  • marcellus

    The Star of Bethlehem had to be something.

    “Oh ye, of little faith.”

  • Dr Bubo

    Obviously it was not a star. It was something else. God only knows.

  • Andrew James

    I being to be slightly offended with some of the posters here, especially macellus’s previous statement “Oh ye, of little faith.” No one really is questioning the Christian faith nor of the possibility of its supernatural occurrence as the Star of Bethlehem.
    The main scientific issue here is to try and explain the existence of some observable astronomical event that might explain the phenomena.
    One of the biggest fault with this whole article is the assumption that; “It’s generally accepted by most researchers that Christ was born between 3 BC and 1 AD.”
    This actually just isn’t true.
    As other point out, the death of Herod the Great was in 4 AD; with his issuing of the decree of the presumed slaughter of the first born by Herod himself. Furthermore, knowledge of the 2 B.C. conjunction has been known for at least a century. It was clearly rejected by theologians, historians and scientists alike as a sign of the coming of the Messiah, because it did not match the known historical events that preceded it. Hence forth, this is why the triple conjunction of Venus, Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC has been studied so much, or of the possibility of a bright comet in 5 BC.
    IMO. Whilst Australian David Reneke may have just stumbled onto this conjunction of 2 BC, it has been shown that this was already known to researches before hand. I.e. Roger Sinott in 1968.
    I don’t wish to be cynical, but Australian Sky and Telescope is certainly gain some great free notoriety – no doubt selling more magazines. After reading this, especially as Roger Sinott also published a similar story in Sky and Telescope in 1968… well let’s say it’s not hard not to the dots.

  • sigh

    come on guys… it’s a ~story~ and that’s it. this is at some points a reputable source of astronomy news, and at other times a bunch of crap.

  • Andrew James

    Sigh said;
    “…this is at some points a reputable source of astronomy news,”

    It might be, but it should also be reputable an acknowledge its origins. Too often new claims of “discovery” are based on more original discoveries made earlier by others. Sometimes sadly some astronomical news is really rehashing what has been established.
    In a journalistic appraisal is supposed to be factual as well as being properly researched. Davis Reneke in his reply to this blog said it himself in Universe Today.
    I.e. “The number of websites my story has appeared on is countless. I chuckled at a few abridged versions – one has me as a research “team leader” using “complex computer software” (its Starry Night guys) and another claims I’m trying to change the day Xmas is celebrated to June 17. Oh, I almost forgot the one where I declared Jesus to be a Gemini! Go figure.”
    All this shows is that controversy and aiming at the common denominator simply sells – in this case astronomy magazines or as it seems.
    Really. Should general misinformation be deemed as better than well-informed and astute commentary on some controversial subject? The main problem is the subject has been debated for not only decades but centuries… but the central essential point is it ain’t ‘new’ news. Pity it was not presented like that rather than to degenerate the faithful and split religion and science down the middle just for a popularist story-line.
    Come on guys, indeed.

  • Bigjon

    it was a supernova which lasted for days, only god knew this from his travels between earth and heaven but still some people believe that heaven is a Metaphor and not a place!

  • Felipe

    It was Sirius. Please watch the “Zeitgeist” documentary, freely available on the internet and youtube. Worth the watch!

  • http://sidewalkuniverse.blogspot.com Richard Smith

    The one point of the gospel Christmas story that has bewildered me is that if it was a significant conjunction of planets, or a sudden brightening of a star, I would would think Herod and his court of experts would have seen it, as would others in Israel and other nations around the world. Our very recent conjunction of Jupiter and Venus drew much attention, and was very obvious to most people. How can such a dramatic event be so hidden? I am not having a problem with the events authenticity, but like many what is the nature of it.

  • http://phillipmoon.name Phillip Moon

    The oldest books in the NT are Paul’s writings. He never talks about the “events” in Matt. Mark is the oldest Gospel, and neither does he talk about any of the tales of Matt. Like most of the stories in the Gospels, they have little connection to any possible historical Jesus.

    In constructing the story of Jesus’ birth, Matt (or the originators of the story he borrowed) would have used details that may have occurred or been thought to occur, and that would have included any stories of bright stars. And as the fable of Herod killing children shows, Matt. was willing to make up whatever he needed to for his tale. In other words, the event of the Christmas Star need not have actually happened to find it’s way into Matt.’s book, but if there were many events about the “right” time, he would have made use of them.

  • alan

    Henry Wysmulek Your my hero!

  • The Occupant

    I have heard this theory before, and I prefer it to Arthur C. Clarkes story about the Star of David having being a supernova, that wiped out a civilization in the process. My personal religious belief has been that God works through the natural. If this is what happened, then it makes sense in that I don’t see how other natural phenomena would have encouraged the Maji to go to Israel specifically.

  • Boyd

    Herod’s death is usually referred to, as it has been in this discussion, as being 4 BC. This date has been inferred from the writings of the historian Josephus. However, it has recently been noted that the oldest manuscripts of Josephus indicate record Herod’s death as 1 BC. Apparently, a sixteenth century copyist’s error is responsible for the incorrect date, which has been propagated to modern editions of Josephus. When you look before 1 BC, you’ll find some very compelling astronomical events occurring. An attorney named Frederick Larson has done his homework on this and it’s very interesting. I know, I know… there are a lot of wacked out theories out there, but Larson is worth listening to, no matter what your faith perspective. His web site is bethlehemstar.net. The production quality of the DVD presentation is top-notch and his subject material is well researched.

  • Andrew James

    Correction.

    I made below the follow assumption, which is not correct.
    Dave Reneke was the actual editor of the now defunct Sky and Space magazine and NOT Australian Sky and Telescope, which is not associated with him or these views.

    “I don’t wish to be cynical, but Australian Sky and Telescope is certainly gain some great free notoriety – no doubt selling more magazines. After reading this, especially as Roger Sinott also published a similar story in Sky and Telescope in 1968… well let’s say it’s not hard not to the dots.”

    Tammy’s article wrote in the third line of bi-line as
    “Australia’s Sky and”, which I thought inferred when scanning the text as “Telescope Magazine” instead of “Space Magazine.”
    As the last issue published of Sky and Space was in November 2007, this is an easy assumption to conclude.

    My unreserved apologies to “Australian Sky and Telescope” for the incorrect inference. No offence was intended.

  • Niel Crafford

    Christ was born between BC what and AD when? If he was still alive today he would be some confused child.

  • Joe M.

    “it has had more impact on humankind than any star before or since.” What about the sun? Has it had no impact on our daily lives what so ever?

Previous post:

Next post: