I have a couple questions about Matthew’s Magi and their star.
Being a skeptic, I think Matthew’s author invented the story about the Magi, but why exactly would invent this story? I understand he wanted to show that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, but why the story about these mysterious Magi that no one can identify coming to worship the Jewish baby king? Everything I read about the Magi deals with who they might have been and where they might have come from. From my point of view, this is beside the point. I think they came from Matthew’s imagination, but I don’t know why he would imagine them. The Old Testament does not say that a star will announce the Messiah’s birth, so why would Matthew’s author invent these Gentiles who seem to have special knowledge of the Jewish Messiah?
Related question. Everyone – including Bart – seems to assume that the Magi followed the star to Bethlehem, but Matthew Chapter 2 does not say that. It says the Magi appeared in Jerusalem looking for the King of the Jews and saying that they had observed his star at its rising. We do not know how they knew the star was the star of the Jewish king, but it would only be natural for them to go to Jerusalem. Where else would you go to find the Jewish king? The Magi do not go to Bethlehem because they are following the star, but because Herod tells them to go to Bethlehem. They only see the star ahead of them after they start out toward Bethlehem. “When they heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, was the star that they had seen at its rising.” I cannot read the original Greek, but that sounds like they not seen the star for a while.
Finally, most people in this forum already understand that no one can follow a star anywhere and stars cannot pinpoint a particular house. Anything that could pinpoint a particular house is not a star, real Magi would know that, and yet Matthew’s Magi tell Herod they saw the “star” (astar) at its rising. My guess is that Matthew’s author invented these Magi who knew a lot about the Jewish Messiah, but seemed quite ignorant of basic astronomy. I remain clueless as to why Matthew’s author would invent the story.
Lawyerskeptic said
I have a couple questions about Matthew’s Magi and their star.Being a skeptic, I think Matthew’s author invented the story about the Magi, but why exactly would invent this story? I understand he wanted to show that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, but why the story about these mysterious Magi that no one can identify coming to worship the Jewish baby king? Everything I read about the Magi deals with who they might have been and where they might have come from. From my point of view, this is beside the point. I think they came from Matthew’s imagination, but I don’t know why he would imagine them. The Old Testament does not say that a star will announce the Messiah’s birth, so why would Matthew’s author invent these Gentiles who seem to have special knowledge of the Jewish Messiah?
Related question. Everyone – including Bart – seems to assume that the Magi followed the star to Bethlehem, but Matthew Chapter 2 does not say that. It says the Magi appeared in Jerusalem looking for the King of the Jews and saying that they had observed his star at its rising. We do not know how they knew the star was the star of the Jewish king, but it would only be natural for them to go to Jerusalem. Where else would you go to find the Jewish king? The Magi do not go to Bethlehem because they are following the star, but because Herod tells them to go to Bethlehem. They only see the star ahead of them after they start out toward Bethlehem. “When they heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, was the star that they had seen at its rising.” I cannot read the original Greek, but that sounds like they not seen the star for a while.
Finally, most people in this forum already understand that no one can follow a star anywhere and stars cannot pinpoint a particular house. Anything that could pinpoint a particular house is not a star, real Magi would know that, and yet Matthew’s Magi tell Herod they saw the “star” (astar) at its rising. My guess is that Matthew’s author invented these Magi who knew a lot about the Jewish Messiah, but seemed quite ignorant of basic astronomy. I remain clueless as to why Matthew’s author would invent the story.
The story certainly is weird to a modern mind, but you have to ask yourself what kind of community would have enjoyed this story in antiquity.
Compare that story to Luke’s narrative. Luke’s story is equally impossible, having Joseph dragging a woman in an advanced state of pregnancy through the wilderness in order to reach a Roman census in which she was not required to participate at a time when Rome did not have direct rule over Judea.
Matthew’s story addresses an audience which has some respect for “the wisdom of the east”. Luke, on the other hand, makes the birth of Jesus deeply seated in the Roman taxation system and thereby addresses audiences who do not want to oppose Roman authority. The villain of Matthew is Herod the Great, who according to Josephus became an important official within the Roman tax system. It is as if Luke consciously wanted to override a possible offense to Roman authorities. Now, from my modest studies in the synoptic problem, I believe that Matthew and Luke are independent. But if Luke’s prologue is a later add-on, the part about the census could be read as a attempt to override Matthews anti-roman bias.
gavriel said
The story certainly is weird to a modern mind, but you have to ask yourself what kind of community would have enjoyed this story in antiquity.
Good advice, but I think you’ve exposed a problem with my question about why Matthew’s author would invent story. A couple of reference books tell me that Matthew’s readers are probably of both Jewish and Gentile origin. Matthew’s author might have intended the story of the wise men to show that Gentiles were in on Christianity from beginning. However, that seems speculative to me. And that may be the problem with my question – there may be no answer that is not mostly speculation.
But what about my other question? Why does everybody seemed believe that the wise men followed the star to Jerusalem?
Why does everybody seemed believe that the wise men followed the star to Jerusalem?
Well the Magi traditionally were considered to be astronomers and astrologers (which in the Near East was pretty much the same thing.) Maybe having them actually “follow” the star was the way Christians had of backing away from the idea of pagans discovering the Messiah through astrological practices that were forbidden to them. As you say, you could easily interpret the passage to mean that the Magi saw a new star in the heavens, consulted their charts, and determined the Messiah was born in Palestine, and went looking for him. Of course a lot of the traditions about the “Wise Men” arose during the Middle Ages. Including the detail that there were three of them.
Lawyerskeptic said
gavriel said
The story certainly is weird to a modern mind, but you have to ask yourself what kind of community would have enjoyed this story in antiquity.
Good advice, but I think you’ve exposed a problem with my question about why Matthew’s author would invent story. A couple of reference books tell me that Matthew’s readers are probably of both Jewish and Gentile origin. Matthew’s author might have intended the story of the wise men to show that Gentiles were in on Christianity from beginning. However, that seems speculative to me. And that may be the problem with my question – there may be no answer that is not mostly speculation.
But what about my other question? Why does everybody seemed believe that the wise men followed the star to Jerusalem?
Matthew used existing traditions, some of them historical, but put them into a composition of his own. Also the Magi element was probably his invention. One of the purposes of the story is to bring outside acknowledgement of the newborn from an established, eastern source of wisdom. That would point to an eastern, mixed gentile/Jewish audience. The story has a two-step movement in which the first identifies a false and evil real king, the next step identifies the true, spiritual king. It would have served no purpose to have a leading star moving on to Jerusalem along a well-known travelling route. The last route has this fancy embellishment to underlline the importance of Bethlehem. Later readers/listeners just conflated the two steps.
gavriel said
Matthew used existing traditions, some of them historical, but put them into a composition of his own. Also the Magi element was probably his invention. One of the purposes of the story is to bring outside acknowledgement of the newborn from an established, eastern source of wisdom. That would point to an eastern, mixed gentile/Jewish audience. The story has a two-step movement in which the first identifies a false and evil real king, the next step identifies the true, spiritual king. It would have served no purpose to have a leading star moving on to Jerusalem along a well-known travelling route. The last route has this fancy embellishment to underlline the importance of Bethlehem. Later readers/listeners just conflated the two steps.
That sounds like an intelligent analysis to me. The idea that Matthew would seek outside acknowledgement from an established source of wisdom rings true, and I can see analogous situations in modern Christian apologetics. Christian apologists often claim that great lawyers – such as Sir Lionel Luckhoo – believe evidence establishes the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. ** you do not have permission to see this link **. I can believe that Matthew’s author would seek validation from Eastern wise men the same way that modern apologist seek validation from lawyers. Nonetheless, we are both just guessing.
Stephen said
Why does everybody seemed believe that the wise men followed the star to Jerusalem?Well the Magi traditionally were considered to be astronomers and astrologers (which in the Near East was pretty much the same thing.) Maybe having them actually “follow” the star was the way Christians had of backing away from the idea of pagans discovering the Messiah through astrological practices that were forbidden to them. As you say, you could easily interpret the passage to mean that the Magi saw a new star in the heavens, consulted their charts, and determined the Messiah was born in Palestine, and went looking for him. Of course a lot of the traditions about the “Wise Men” arose during the Middle Ages. Including the detail that there were three of them.
I’ve read they had the book of Daniel and that Daniel had instructed the wise men in the meaning of the stars, and the prophecy of the stars, and they knew when Daniel said one would enter Jerusalem and worked the math backwards in conjunction to the prophecy of Daniel – knowing the hidden meaning of the Zodiac (Gospel of the Stars by Joseph Seiss).
If you ever read it – the Scripture was he would be “cut off”, not “sacrificed” – an important distinction that many with blurry vision fail to note.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)