And there are biblical scholars who have put forth the idea that Jesus
was a fictition made of the characteristics of many leaders from that
time. I don't necessarily subscribe to this, but wouldn't it be
deliciously funny if true?

As to this particular statement: To presume that Matthew 'made up' the
account of the star is an academic fallacy that leads to a dead end.

Why is it an academic fallacy when in all likelihood it is a proper
interpretation. The story of the star and the wisemen is much more
likely a story intended to show that Matthew's Messiah was prophesized
one. What better way to show he had found the one true Messiah than to
show peoples not related to the Jewish heritage acknowledging him as such.

The nature of the lunar eclipse is what would have likely made it worth
noting. Lunar eclipses were not rare, but ones having a strange
appearance, such as the one in 1 B.C. The Moon rose already partially in
the shadow and proceded to enter it completely as it rose. The one in 4
B.C. happened much later in the evening and likely would not have been
chronicled. And there is the factoidal writings of Josephus of all the
events that took place between the death of Herod, his funeral, and the
ascension to the throne of his successor prior to Passover. Those
events take time, time not in abundance if the April 4 B.C. eclipse was
the correct one.

Oh, and if Josephus wrote either 4 B.C. or 1 B.C., then that is an
amazing fact in and of itself. That kind of designation would not be
developed for more than 500 years in the future.

wrote:
It is an historical fact that Herod died in April of 4 BC (3 B.C.E.)
One, AND ONLY ONE, Star of Bethlehem commentator found an astronomical
configuration
that, he thought, MAY have been the Star of Bethlehem but it occured in
1 BC. This commentator
then deduced that Josephus (ancient historian) made a transcription
error and wrote 4 BC instead of 1 BC.
Very poor scholarship.

Herod's death was marked by a lunar eclipse (April 13th 4 BC)

The 1 BC date is not supported by any scholars and is seen as a
fabrication in an attempt to lend credibility to the 1 BC.

There was a census (also) in 7 BC.

To presume that Matthew 'made up' the account of the star is an
academic fallacy that leads to a dead end.
If that part was made up why not the whole New testament?