by The Great Christ Comet- Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem (retail) (epub)
The Magi’s story could simply have been mediated to Matthew through Mary, but it is also possible that (and would hardly be surprising if) some of the early Christians tracked down and interviewed the Magi themselves (or other members of their traveling party) about what had happened, and that Matthew made use of this material as well. Needless to say, for the Magi (and their fellow travelers) this was a once-in-a-lifetime, profoundly emotional, and indeed life-changing event which they would have discussed often, beginning as soon as they left the holy family. In addition, written astronomical records would have reinforced the memories of the Magi. There is every reason to believe that, four or five decades later, any of the Magi (or their fellow travelers) who remained alive would have accurately remembered what had happened.
Finally, if what Matthew records concerning the Star is found to be in accord with astronomical knowledge, that would constitute further powerful evidence in favor of the account’s historical credentials. Indeed, since scarcely any episode in the Gospel of Matthew is more commonly rejected as unhistorical than the story of the Magi’s visit to baby Jesus, authenticating the historicity of the Star would be an important validation of the historical reliability of the Gospel as a whole.
Countering Objections to Historicity
Those who have been unwilling to accept the historical basis of the Star narrative have resorted to rather feeble arguments to justify their cynicism. For example, J. N. M. Wijngaards questions whether Herod would have convoked the Sanhedrin, highlights the redundancy of the Star leading the Magi to Bethlehem (since they already would have known the way),7 suggests that Herod would have sent a spy along, and wonders why an episode such as the slaughter of the infants went unmentioned by other sources.8
However, when Herod was in urgent need of religious instruction, he would, of course, have arranged for a gathering of the top theologians in the land (Matt. 2:4: “all the chief priests and scribes of the people”). Knowing that within Judaism and indeed even within individual movements like Pharisaism there was a variety of interpretive traditions, Herod would have been eager to be exposed to the full range of exegetical opinion on the question of the Messiah’s birthplace. Too much was at stake for Herod to restrict his theological counsel to one or two religious leaders.
Moreover, the appearance of the Star on the final stage of the Magi’s journey was not entirely devoid of purpose, since the Star did pinpoint the precise location within Bethlehem where the messianic child was. To the extent that the Star’s role in guiding the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem was redundant, since the Magi presumably had been informed as to where Bethlehem was, this actually speaks for the authenticity of the story rather than against it. Historically accurate narrative is full of redundancies, whereas fiction prefers to avoid them. At the same time, historically, the Star’s presence when the Magi were traveling from Jerusalem to Bethlehem may have had various functions: to confirm the Magi in their mission, to heighten their sense of anticipation, and to engender in them the feeling that they were being ushered into the presence of the Messiah.
The claim that Herod would have sent a spy along with the Magi fails to take due account of the dynamics of the story as told by Matthew: The Magi were obviously extremely naive, gullibly believing that Herod really did want to make a personal journey to worship the Messiah. They had willingly become his agents and promised to report back to him.9 There was, quite simply, no reason for Herod to doubt that they would return to the palace in due course, and hence there was no need to send a spy along.
As regards the lack of explicit references to the massacre elsewhere, this is hardly surprising—the incident, while horrific, was confined to a small area around Bethlehem and may have involved the deaths of no more than 20–40 infants. No historian records every event, as a reading of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio on any given period makes clear. Josephus naturally focused his account on the many events that seemed to him of greater immediate political significance to Herod’s reign and his succession.10
However, strikingly, an implicit reference to the incident may be found in the pseudepigraphal Assumption of Moses (6:4), which very probably dates to early in the first century AD (AD 6–30). It reports in prophetic form what Herod did during his reign: “And he will cut off their chief men with the sword, and will destroy (them) in secret places, so that no one may know where their bodies are. He will slay the old and the young, and he shall not spare. Then the fear of him shall be bitter unto them in their land. And he shall execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them, during thirty and four years, and he shall punish them.”11 Historically, we know of no other event during Herod’s reign that would explain the peculiar reference to his merciless slaying of the young than the Massacre of the Innocents.12 C. E. B. Cranfield rightly wonders if this is remarkably early evidence of Herod’s atrocity from an independent source.13
Furthermore, the incident is mentioned in the Protevangelium of James (22:1: “When Herod perceived that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was enraged, and sent murderers, instructing them to slay the children in their second year or under”14), which dates to around AD 150.
In conclusion, it would seem that the case against the historicity of the Star narrative is contrived and weak. The evidence is strongly in favor of the account’s historical authenticity.
Matthew 1–2: The Nativity and the Star
We must now consider the relevant section of Matthew’s Gospel.
Immediately after setting out Jesus’s genealogy (Matt. 1:1–17), Matthew relates the story of the Nativity (vv. 18–25) and the visit of the Magi to Jesus (2:1–12). The focus in 1:18–2:12 is clearly on Jesus’s birth, as highlighted by the introductory summary in 1:18a: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.” The emphasis on the birth of Jesus is apparent in 1:21, 23, 25; 2:1, 2, and 4–6. The Star seen by the Magi in the east was evidently interpreted by them as heralding his birth (note 2:2: “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star at its rising . . .”). Matthew claims that the prophets Isaiah (Isa. 7:14) and Micah (5:2) had prophesied about the circumstances of the Messiah’s birth, and that these prophecies were fulfilled in connection with the birth of Jesus.
Before turning to Matthew 2:1–18, we must consider briefly 1:18–25.
Matthew 1:18–25: A Brief Overview
Joseph the Descendant of David
Matthew’s focus in this brief account of the nativity story is on Joseph as Jesus’s legal father. That Joseph has this role is emphasized in verse 25b, where we read that he “called [the child’s] name Jesus.” In the words of Hare, “Joseph’s naming of Mary’s baby constituted in this instance an acknowledgment that, by God’s will and act, the boy is authentically his son.”15 Because of this, it is Jesus’s family tree through Joseph that is set out in verses 1–17. This is important because Joseph is in the line of David.
Joseph the Legal Father of Jesus
According to Matthew, Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Naturally, when Joseph learned of Mary’s conception, he, knowing for certain that he was not the father of the child in Mary’s womb, assumed that Mary had been sexually promiscuous. However, Matthew informs us that, although some men might in these circumstances have acted ruthlessly and rashly, publicly shaming their betrothed, Joseph was “a just man and [was] unwilling to put her to shame” and therefore “resolved to divorce her quietly” (1:19). Of course, such an action, even though well-intentioned, would have derailed the work of God, for Joseph was the Messiah’s God-ordained legal father from the line of David. For this reason, according to Matthew’s account, God intervened to ensure that his plan remained on track: an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, assuring him that the child in Mary’s womb was not the product of immorality, but of a miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit, and calling on him not to be afraid to carry on with his original plan to marry her. The angel explained that Mary would “bea
r a son” and that he, Joseph, would call “his name Jesus” (v. 21). Joseph responded to the divine instruction with obedience, taking Mary as his wife, avoiding sexual relations with her until after she had given birth, and naming the child Jesus.
Fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14
Of particular importance to Matthew is that what transpired—the virginal conception and birth and Joseph’s formal acceptance of Jesus as his son—fulfilled a key prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures, Isaiah 7:14. In this prophecy Isaiah declared to the eighth-century BC Davidic king Ahaz, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall be with child16 and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Matthew clearly regarded this prophecy as in some sense awaiting fulfillment until the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. This interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy may well have set Matthew apart from most contemporary non-Christian Jewish interpreters, who did not believe that the Messiah would be born without a biological father.17
Matthew 2:1–12: A Detailed Look
We shall now walk through Matthew 2:1–12 in a bid to understand the story of the Magi more precisely and to glean a more detailed profile of the Star.
The visit of the Magi took place in the wake of the birth of Jesus. Verse 1 states, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east came to Jerusalem.” The sequence of events makes good sense, since the Magi have come to Jerusalem on account of witnessing a celestial sign that they have interpreted as announcing the birth of the King of the Jews.
Jesus’s Birth: The Place
The town where Jesus was born is identified here for the first time as Bethlehem. This prepares for verses 4–6, where the chief priests inform Herod that the Messiah was, according to the prophet Micah, to be born in Bethlehem. The town had strong Davidic connections. As the book of Ruth makes plain, Bethlehem was where Boaz and Ruth, David’s great-grandparents, met and married and bore David’s grandfather Obed. Moreover, it was in Bethlehem that Obed fathered Jesse and that Jesse fathered David.
Matthew highlights that Bethlehem was “of Judea.” It is possible that “of Judea” is intended to distinguish the Bethlehem just south of Jerusalem from the Bethlehem in Galilee,18 or that it is merely a stereotypical phrase. However, it is more likely that it anticipates verses 5–6, which quote Micah’s prophecy to the effect that the Messiah would be born in the territory of the tribe of Judah, ultimately recalling Genesis 49:9–10 (“Judah is a lion’s cub. . . . The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples”).
Jesus’s Birth: The Time
The time when Jesus was born is defined as being “in the days of Herod the king” (Matt. 2:1), referring to Herod the Great. Although there is some debate, it is generally believed that Herod died in 4 BC. Coins minted under the reign of Herod’s sons date to 4 BC, indicating that this was indeed the year of Herod the Great’s death. Moreover, Josephus, Ant. 17.6.4 (§§164–167), informs us that there was a lunar eclipse less than a month before the Passover that presaged Herod’s death, and the only plausible candidate is the partial lunar eclipse on the night of March 12–13 in 4 BC (during which year Passover fell on April 11). Herod, then, passed away at the end of March or beginning of April in 4 BC. In order to accommodate the events of Matthew 2:12–18, it seems best to conclude that Jesus’s birth took place in either 6 BC or 5 BC. A date in either of these years would be compatible with Luke 3:23’s statement that Jesus began his ministry (in the late 20s AD) when he was “about thirty years of age,” which would readily accommodate an age of up to 34.
It must be understood that the BC/AD (BCE/CE) system with which we are so familiar was built on the work of Dionysius Exiguus, a sixth-century Scythian monk. Unfortunately, in his dating of Jesus’s nativity he made a couple of miscalculations which mean that, contrary to what one might have expected, the birth of Jesus does not correspond to the year 0 (zero). First, the monk did not include a year 0, so that one moves from 1 BC straight to AD 1. Second, he failed to take into consideration the four years when Caesar Augustus reigned under his original name Octavian. Consequently, even before considering the Biblical evidence, the BC/AD transition is off target by 5 years.
The Magi’s Entry into Jerusalem
The use of “behold” in association with the entry of the Magi into Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1) highlights that it was a memorable marvel.
The Procession of Magi in AD 66. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the journey of the Magi in Matthew’s account was similar to a journey by another group of magi some seven decades later—the procession of Tiridates and the magi to Nero in Italy in AD 66. Tiridates, the king of Armenia, his royal court, a train of servants, three Parthian royal sons, and 3,000 Parthian horsemen made “a quasi-triumphal procession through the whole country west from the Euphrates” to Italy (Cassius Dio 63.1–2).19 The presence of magi is mentioned by Pliny the Elder, Natural History 30.6.16–17. The procession lasted nine months in total, and the traveling party was greeted with fanfare and acclamations as it passed through various towns and cities (Cassius Dio 63.2). Upon meeting Nero, Tiridates “knelt down upon the ground, and with arms crossed called him master and did obeisance” (63.2).20 Later on, at a public celebration at the Forum, Tiridates repeated his gesture of obeisance to Nero, as the emperor was seated on his curule chair on the Rostra, wearing triumphal dress (Suetonius, Nero 13; Cassius Dio 63.2). Then Tiridates formally addressed Nero: “Master, I am the descendant of Arsaces, brother of the princes Vologaesus and Pacorus, and your slave. And I have come to you, my deity, to worship you as I do Mithra. The destiny you spin for me shall be mine; for you are my Fortune and my Fate” (63.4–5).21 We would not expect the procession of the Magi at the time of Jesus’s birth to be anywhere near as large or dramatic as that of Tiridates in AD 66. At the same time, there may well have been more than three Magi in the visiting party. Regardless of how many Magi there were, the extraordinary sight of them entering Jerusalem must have lived long in the memories of all who witnessed it.
What Were “Magi”? Matthew refers to the visitors as “magi.” As Brown puts it, “the term ‘magi’ refers to those engaged in occult arts and covers a wide range of astronomers, fortune tellers, priestly augurers, and magicians of varying plausibility.”22 The Greek version of Daniel by Theodotion uses the word to translate Hebrew and Aramaic terms for “enchanters” (NIV, ESV), “conjurers” (NASB), or “astrologers” (KJV; NET) (Dan. 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:7; 5:7, 11, 15). In Matthew 2, where the focus is so strongly on a star’s behavior, it is clear that the “magi” in view are first and foremost professional astronomers and astrologers.23 Their lives were dedicated to gleaning from the heavens insights concerning human affairs. It was evidently as they were making their normal astronomical observations that they saw the Star.
There can be no serious doubt that the Magi were Gentiles.24
The fact that the visitors are described as “magi” does not necessitate that the celestial phenomenon they witnessed was astrological in nature. It only suggests that they were in the habit of examining the heavens for astrological information. What precisely they saw and its interpretation cannot be prejudged on the basis of the identity of the beholding eyes. Certainly, as Plummer highlighted, “There is not one word in the narrative to indicate that the Magi did wrong in drawing inferences from what they saw in the heavens, or that their knowledge of the birth of the Messiah was obtained from evil spirits or by the practice of any black art.”25 Astrology is condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Jer. 10:1–2; cf. Deut. 18:9–14; Isa. 47:13). If we assume, as would seem wise, that Matthew adhered to the established Scriptural and official Jewish stance toward astrology,26 then he could hardly have believed that the sign witnessed by the Magi was fundamentally astrological in nature. It may have had meaning to astrologers, but its correct interpretation probably did not require astrolog
ical knowledge. This, of course, begs the question, What could they have seen that so impacted them but did not require astrological training to understand?
The East. The Magi hailed from “the east” (Matt. 2:1). The country from which the Magi came is much debated, with scholars suggesting Arabia, Persia/Parthia, and Babylon.
Arabia? Arabia has often been proposed,27 largely due to the fact that it was sometimes said to be in the east (Gen. 10:30; Judg. 6:3; Job 1:3; Isa. 11:14; Ezek. 25:4, 10) and because of the reference in Isaiah 60:6 (cf. Ps. 72:10, 15) to people from the Arabian Peninsula (Midian, Ephah, and Sheba) in the eschatological era making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, during which they bring “gold and frankincense.” However, while Matthew may well have Isaiah 60:6 in view as he writes, he is hardly claiming that this prophecy was completely fulfilled by the Magi who visited Jesus at his birth; consequently, it is unwise to read Isaiah’s mention of Arabia into Matthew 2:1. At most, Matthew is presenting the Magi’s coming as an anticipation of what would take place in the future. Moreover, as Keener points out, “In most accounts Magi hail from Persia or Babylon (e.g., Cic. De Leg. 2.10.26; Philo, Spec. 3.100; Prob. 74; Dio Chrys. Or. 36; Lucian, Runaways 8; Diog Laert. 8.1.3; Char. Chaer. 5.9.4; Philost. V.A. 1.24).”28
