wrote:
Matthew's account of the star is proved correct IF a temporary
celestial phenomenon is discovered within the biblical timeline (7 BC
to 4 BC) that fits the definition of "asterism".

No one, other than the Magi, saw the 'star' (according to the texts).
Even Herod replied (to the Magi) "what star"?

To conclude, without first investigating all reasonable possibilities,
that the account is fiction is unsupportable by all academic standards.


Actually, it is completely nonacademic to claim that the Bible version
is infallible precisely because the Magi were the only ones to see the
phenomenon, whatever it was. If you wish to rely on an astronomical
phenomenon to be the star, you fail because of the motions supposedly
attributed to it. If you wish to assert conjunctions, there is no
written record of how any conjunction would have been any more special
than any other - lots of conjunctions between planets occurred over the
time period in question involving planets and other planets and planets
and bright stars. So, this leaves you with miracle or fantasy, both of
which fall outside of scientific province.

After 2000 years, the only conclusion that can be drawn about those
wishing to vindicate Matthew is that they can't separate faith from
reality. That is what you do when you reject the possibility that
Matthew simply made the story up to make a stronger case for Jesus being
the Messiah.