Another web site states :
(snip)
A word of advice though. It’s been the vogue for many people, scholars included, to tie in the Star of Bethlehem naturalistically with whatever ‘spectacular’ or prominent astronomical phenomenon that would have occurred at that time: comets, supernovas, planets, whatever. But when you actually read Matthew’s text (without the preconceived notions of the Star being this gigantic, pointy ball of gas you see depicted in Nativity scenes today), what we are told is that the Magi saw the star “in the East / at its rising,” and that later, while they were leaving Jerusalem, it reappeared and “went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was.”
You could actually make the case that the Star was not an astronomical phenomenon at all, but a one-time miracle. Many early Christians actually interpreted the Star in this way: they thought that it was an angel who took the form of a star (the idea of linking angels with stars actually has a Jewish precedent* - in fact, not just Jewish, it was a general idea in the ancient world that stuff like stars are really ‘living’ beings; some people actually argue that Matthew probably had the same thing in mind). They interpreted the ‘Star’ “[coming] to rest over the place where the child was” as it literally coming down from the dome of the sky to
literally guide the Magi to Bethlehem and
literally stopping over the house where Joseph and Mary stayed. Yes, just like the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire that guided the Israelites through the desert.
A textual variant of this passage actually makes this clearer: in this version, the star “came to rest upon the child,” a la the Holy Spirit descending and resting upon Jesus at His baptism. (That’s what Origen said: “[The star] came down to the very place where the infant was [and it remained] on the Christ [just as, when he later submitted to John’s baptism, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended] and remained on him.”) You can see shades of this interpretation in this commentary in St. Irenaeus:
And at His birth the star appeared to the Magi who dwelt in the east; and thereby they learned that Christ was born; and they came to Judaea, led by the star; until the star came to Bethlehem where Christ was born, and entered the house wherein was laid the child, wrapped in swaddling-clothes;
and it stood over His head, declaring to the Magi the Son of God, the Christ. (Irenaeus,
Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 58)
The star descended from the heights and came closer to the earth to show the place to them [the magi]. For if it had appeared to them in the heights, how would they have been able to perceive the particular spot where Christ was? For the stars are visible over a great area. You may accordingly behold the moon over your house while it appears to me that it is over my house only. In short, the moon or a star appears to one and all to stand over them alone.
So this star could not have indicated where Christ was unless it descended and stood over the head of the child. (Theophylact,
Commentary on Matthew 2.9)
- That’s why you had Christians imagining from Revelation 12’s description that the Dragon’s tail swept “a third of the stars out of the sky” as meaning that Satan actually managed to sway a third of the angels to his side, and that the “morning star”/‘Lucifer’ in Isaiah 14 actually refers typologically to him. It’s the angel = star idea at work.
