J. Brit. Astron. Assoc., 110, 1, 2000, p.39

The Star of Bethlehem: an astronomer's view

The Star is a potent and familiar Christmas symbol, as popular as holly and robins. But is the biblical mention of the Christmas star in Matthew's gospel more than symbolic - a record of a real astronomical phenomenon? Though Mark Kidger is not the first astronomer to weigh in with a perspective on this intriguing question, and probably will not be the last, the survey he presents of the many astronomical explanations mooted over the years is a welcome contribution. It is widely researched and well written.

Kidger acknowledges that it is by no means certain that there really was a star, characterising the Bible as 'a mixture of faith, vision and history that are often difficult to separate'. However, if astronomers could come up with a plausible scenario for an appropriate heavenly event (or series of events) at the right time, the star could more safely be labelled as 'history'. This is no mean challenge. No-one has found a solution elegant enough to receive universal acclaim.

Mark Kidger has his pet theory, which he saves up for the last chapter, having carefully laid the astronomical clues in what goes before. As if it were a detective story, he cleverly builds up to the final denouement, keeping readers in suspense to the end. And it is a jolly good read - quite 'unputdownable'. His solution is interesting, but as with so many detective stories, one ends up feeling the plot is just a little too contrived to be really credible.

Any writer tackling this subject has the same problem. The brief biblical references to the star are so vague and tantalising that a hypothesis has to be built like a house of cards, held in place only by the strength of the argument, on a rather shaky foundation of interpretation and conjecture. And astronomy is not enough. Even an astronomer cannot tackle the star of Bethlehem without straying into theology, history and - yes - astrology.

Having entered this less familiar territory, Kidger has unwittingly constructed an argument that does more to defend astrology than to trumpet a success for historical astronomy. In the absence of a single overwhelmingly obvious event, he focuses on a series of four astrologically significant 'signs' over a period of two years (7-5 BC), elaborating the interpretation the Magi would have put on them: ...to await news from Judaea; ...to expect the imminent birth of the Messiah; ...that the birth had finally happened. If the Magi were indeed able to read so much correct information from the heavens, is it not time we all took astrology more seriously?

Go to the BAA Journal home page

Return to Journal 2000 February contents page